Newsroom > Legislative News

Legislative News

House Energy and Commerce Committee

Environment and Economy Subcommittee

Andy Igrejas, Director

Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families

Thank you, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko and members of the Committee. My name is Andy Igrejas and I’m the Director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a broad coalition of organizations and businesses[i] dedicated to reforming our nation’s chemical policies to better protect public health and the environment. I’m very thankful for the opportunity to address the committee as it considers reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The focus of today’s hearing is S. 1009, the Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA). The Senate bill has raised hopes that reform can be enacted in this Congress. We share those hopes. At the same time, there are standards that any reform must meet to be credible and meaningful. As drafted, the CSIA does not meet those standards. We offer the following critique of the legislation in a constructive spirit with the hope that it can inform Congress’s work.

In previous hearings the committee began the process of understanding what didn’t work in TSCA and why and of identifying the critical fixes needed in any reform. Congress can craft a law that will enjoy broad support from the health and environmental community if it focuses tightly on the most critical elements to achieve the clearest possible protections for public health and the environment. I hope my testimony suggests a path forward.

Key Lessons of TSCA

As previous testimony has shown, TSCA failed for a variety of reasons. The standard in the bill proved impossible to meet. Unlike other environmental and public health laws, it was not a strictly risk-based or health-based standard. The standard bound up consideration of the risks of a chemical with the evaluation of its benefits and the costs of any proposed restrictions. The law also required EPA not merely to choose proportional risk management measures, but to demonstrate it had chosen the “least burdensome” of those measures. It made it difficult for EPA to require the development of health and safety information on a chemical. It allowed companies to claim information confidential without justification. It did not set clear deadlines or timelines for EPA action. Its procedures were cumbersome and some of its terminology vague, leading to fatal delays and litigation. In retrospect, TSCA’s only clear achievement was the ban on PCBs and its saving grace was that it did not unduly restrict the states. In the 36 years of federal dysfunction the states have stepped forward to fill the gap.

The fundamental problem with the CSIA is that it fails to learn from these lessons. Though the intent may be otherwise, as drafted the CSIA practically invites litigation, delays action on most chemicals, continues to constrain the development of health and safety information, and allows critical information to be hidden from the public. But this time it would also restrict the states even in the absence of meaningful action from the federal government.

The Safety Standard

A core idea of the CSIA is that it “fixes” TSCA’s standard rather than imposing a new standard such as “reasonable certainty of no harm” as proposed in previous reform legislation. At its most basic level, fixing the standard means changing it to be a risk-based standard, rather than one that balances the risks and benefits and also requires EPA to choose the “least burdensome” regulatory approach. It is the commingling of these considerations that the court cited in blocking EPA from regulating even asbestos, a substance with devastating health impacts that are beyond argument.

The CSIA has language in Section 6 saying that the safety determination for existing chemicals should be made based on risk, but because of the way it is drafted the cost-benefit considerations are not fully separated and the “least burdensome” requirement is effectively retained for bans and phase outs. While the intent of the bill may be to require a risk-only determination in this section, that intent is not realized. In fact, our reading of the legislation is that EPA would still not be able to ban asbestos under the section as drafted.

But there is the additional problem that the “unreasonable risk” standard is also invoked in Sections 4 and 5 where there is no qualifying language suggesting a new meaning. In Section 4 EPA is directed to identify chemicals as “low priority” based on a determination that they are “likely to meet the safety standard.” Those chemicals are set aside for no further action or scrutiny. In Section 5 the EPA is directed to apply the same test to a new chemical before it is allowed on the market. This is one of the bill’s major selling points--that it imposes a safety screen of some kind on new chemicals for the first time. However, since “unreasonable risk” has such a clear meaning in the legislative history and case law of TSCA, it would almost certainly have the same old meaning, and therefore the same old problems, in these sections.

The simplest way to avoid these problems is choosing a different standard that signals a clear break with TSCA, such as “reasonable certainty of no harm” which is currently used in the pesticide program. If the legislation continues to use “unreasonable risk” it should be clearly re-defined in the definitions section of the bill to be explicitly health-only. That clear break would end the ambiguity anywhere the term is used in the bill and reduce the risk of litigation. Section 6 should also be redrafted to truly end the “least burdensome” requirement and simplify the cost benefit considerations for risk management measures.

Safety Determinations

Recent National Academy of Sciences[ii] reports, the American Academy of Pediatrics[iii], and the broad public health and environmental community agree that safety determinations should protect vulnerable populations and account for the aggregate exposure to a chemical. Though grounded in science, both concepts also make common sense and are relatively easy to understand. They were at the core of the bipartisan reform of pesticide law, the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. Neither concept is adequately reflected in the CSIA, though they are mentioned in ways that suggest some intent to incorporate them.

Vulnerable populations refers to the fact that a given chemical will affect me- as a relatively healthy 200lb adult male in Washington, DC- differently than it affects a child, a pregnant woman, or someone who lives or works in a heavily contaminated environment. Many chemicals, particularly those that mimic hormones, have substantially more impact on the developing fetus or child than on an adult.[iv] The vast body of peer-reviewed science on this subject over the last twenty years has helped put chemical reform on the national agenda. A 1993 National Academy of Sciences study, Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children, found that a failure to account for vulnerable populations meant that EPA decisions about pesticides did not protect children from exposure to the pesticide residues on food. Congress responded with the FQPA in 1996 to ensure that they did. It would be odd for Congress, after all these years, to reform our chemical policies in ways that did not provide a similar assurance for chemicals. Vulnerable populations should be defined in the legislation. Safety assessments should be required to identify them for a given chemical, and any risk management measure should be required to protect them.

Aggregate exposure is a fancy term for the basic fact that we are often exposed to the same chemical from multiple sources. That means that the dose of the chemical that we receive is bigger than the dose from any one exposure, in the same way that taking three pills of a prescription drug represents a bigger dose than one pill. A pregnant woman, for example, might be exposed to the same chemical from multiple consumer products in her home, a process at her workplace, and- if the chemical is also a pollutant- from the air or water. If safety assessments don’t take the aggregate exposure into account, they will simply be wrong. They will not reflect what is happening in the real world and the resulting risk management measures won’t make a difference in the real world. The legislation should require EPA to assess the aggregate exposure to a chemical unless it determines that any vulnerable populations it identifies are not exposed to the chemical from more than one source.

Our coalition prefers the “reasonable certainty of no harm” standard in part because it incorporates these concepts automatically given its history in the pesticide law. If Congress retains the “unreasonable risk” standard in the legislation, the safety determinations must include vulnerable populations and aggregate exposure as core concepts. (This also could be done in a new definition of “unreasonable risk.”) Otherwise, Congress will not be able to claim that the legislation protects pregnant women and children and heavily contaminated communities from chemicals as they are actually used.

Testing and Information Requirements

The CSIA allows EPA to require testing on an existing chemical by order rather than by the more cumbersome rule-making process. That is a significant improvement for which its authors deserve credit. At the same time this improvement is constrained by the fact that EPA can require testing only for existing chemicals under the bill if it has designated them as high-priority. That creates a few problems.

First, it means that EPA can only prioritize chemicals based on existing information, rather than any new testing data. The information available for most chemicals is relatively limited (a legacy of TSCA’s overly burdensome process for testing.) That, in turn, means that a chemical could be designated as low-priority based on inadequate information. Under the bill, these chemicals are then effectively set-aside forever at both the federal and state level, unless new information becomes available. It is unclear where that information would come from. Industry would have no incentive to develop it, and EPA would not be allowed to order it under the bill. In addition, if EPA has to put anything that it thinks needs some testing in the high-priority category it will certainly slow down that process. An obvious solution is to allow EPA to order testing for purposes of prioritization, not just for purposes of a safety determination, and to require adequate information for a low-priority designation.

In addition, the CSIA requires EPA to tier testing requirements in an overly rigid way. A chemical would have to raise a red flag from a screening level test before EPA can order a more extensive test. There are not effective screening level tests that predict some of the health endpoints about which the public is most concerned. Where these endpoints are a concern, the EPA should be able move straight to the more relevant test. The tiered testing requirements in the bill should be eased to ensure that needed tests aren’t prevented.

Finally, the CSIA takes away EPA’s ability to require testing for new chemicals. The way it is drafted suggests that change may have been inadvertent, but this authority should be restored.

Confidential Business Information

The public interest community and most of regulated industry have agreed for some time that TSCA’s provisions for CBI are too often abused. In addition, the burgeoning “secret inventory” of chemicals undermines the transparency of the program. The absurd consequence is that you can see there is a chemical on the inventory that causes cancer, you just can’t find out which chemical.

The CSIA creates new rules of the road for justifying CBI claims that are an improvement, but it strangely grandfathers in existing claims, including those whose abuses fueled calls for reform. The grandfathering should be removed. In addition, the CSIA enshrines the concept of a secret inventory in the law for the first time. Further debate and discussion are needed to find a solution on the issue of chemical identity that does not threaten public health and the environment.

“Frameworks” and Science Guidance

There are six subsections in Section 4 and two in Section 6 of the CSIA that require the EPA to develop new “frameworks”, policies and guidance on both procedures for the program and scientific questions like evaluating the reliability of data. These policies are also subject to notice and comment and judicial review. Simply completing these frameworks on the most optimistic schedule would take several years. If EPA is prevented from getting started evaluating chemicals until these policies are in place it will lead to substantial delay in the entire program.

In addition, this section of the bill uses various terms of art in ways that are mostly undefined and which will encourage litigation over the ambiguities. In at least one instance the bill takes a stand on a particular science question that contradicts the National Academy of Sciences recommendations.

These sections of the legislation could simply be eliminated. The EPA already has guidance and polices on most of the questions – like prioritization and assessment methodologies. At the very least these sections should be consolidated with careful attention to avoiding new handles for litigation or unacceptably delaying the start of the new program. If science guidance is needed, it should reflect, rather than contradict, the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences.

State Pre-emption

One of TSCA’s only clear successes is that it allowed states to develop their own chemical policies and restrictions unless they conflict with a federal regulation. Even then, it allowed states to seek a waiver for their own restrictions or to ban a chemical outright. Since the TSCA program never really got off the ground, states have played the leading role in regulating chemicals over the last 36 years. Many states have banned particular chemicals of concern- like mercury, cadmium and bisphenol A- from particular categories of products. A handful -California, Maine, Washington, and Minnesota - have developed more comprehensive policies that address broader classes of chemicals.[v] These policies have improved public health and environmental quality.

CSIA would pre-empt state restrictions on a chemical at the point at which EPA prioritizes the chemical as either High or Low. Low priority chemicals are those that EPA is setting aside based on a review that is, by definition, short of a full safety determination. This more cursory review does not justify that level of protection for a chemical. For high priority chemicals, on the other hand, it could be years between the prioritization of the chemical and the decision that it is either safe, or that it is unsafe and requires risk management measures. In the meantime, states would be prevented from taking action on what are, by definition, the riskier chemicals. The proposed new waiver process for states is overly cumbersome compared to the existing one. The states’ ability to co-enforce federal requirements is removed. Finally, while an attempt has been made in the bill to preserve state warning and information requirements, which have been some of the most effective, the language ultimately does not protect them.

The more protective approach to states’ rights in the current TSCA largely worked as intended. States were allowed to move forward even as the federal program became bogged down in ways that surely none of its authors intended. Congress should apply that lesson to the CSIA.

Deadlines, Minimum Requirements, and Funding

One of the lessons of TSCA is that it lacked deadlines or goals for how many existing chemicals should be reviewed or how long assessments should take. The new chemicals program, on the other hand, had clear deadlines for how quickly EPA had to respond to a pre-manufacture notice. As a result, most of the activity at EPA under TSCA has been in the new chemicals program. Also, other laws administered by the EPA generally had deadlines for listing pollutants or making decisions, pushing TSCA’s existing chemicals program to the back of the line in a bureaucratic environment of limited resources.

The CSIA repeats this mistake. It should be amended to add deadlines for critical policy decisions and for the minimum number of chemicals assessed, either per year, or over some longer timeframe. Reform should also contain a new source of dedicated funding for the program, such as a user fee. Appropriate deadlines and work requirements would drive action at the agency and help both Congress and the public to hold the agency accountable.

The Low Priority Category

Finally, we would urge the Committee to consider whether the legislation should have a low-priority category at all. The goal of reform should be to protect public health and the environment from the risks posed by chemicals. Public confidence will follow if that goal is being met and benefits to the business community will follow on top of that. A modest but credible program will still produce tangible results.

The low-priority category in the bill adds a level of murkiness to the program that will likely undermine its credibility. For high priority chemicals- if all the appropriate fixes are made- the public will know that a chemical is either safe or that its risks are being adequately controlled. Low priority chemicals, however, are effectively being treated as safe even though they haven’t really been found to be safe. Furthermore, EPA resources will be diverted into deciding what goes into this murky category rather than focused where they should be: taking action on the riskiest chemicals.

Earlier, I proposed changes that limit the damage from this category--requiring adequate information, breaking the link to pre-emption, clarifying the standard, etc. But with limited resources likely to be the norm for the foreseeable future, Congress should consider focusing those resources on a single category of priority chemicals.


This is not an exhaustive list of either the problems with the CSIA or its positive attributes, but it does provide the committee with the areas of the bill that we believe require the most attention. In general, the bill needs a substantial reworking and rebalancing in favor of delivering clearer health and environmental benefits sooner and reducing the risks of paralysis and delay. There are provisions from previous reform proposals, such as expedited action on persistent bio-accumulative toxins (PBTs) and “hot spot” communities that would help effect such a rebalancing if incorporated. I’ve focused my testimony instead on the core areas within the framework of the CSIA and where we see them falling short of the critical elements needed for reform to be meaningful and credible. We hope Congress will consider these recommendations and craft legislation that provides the public with the appropriate oversight of chemicals that is long overdue.



[ii] National Research Council, Science and Decisions- Advancing Risk Assessment (2009), National Acadamies Press

[iii] “Policy Statement Chemical-Management Policy: Prioritizing Children’s Health,” April 25th, 2001, Pediatrics, American Academy of Pediatrics.



Sincere effort at bi-partisan progress; needs improvement to ensure adequate protection

We commend the bi-partisan group of Senators on the introduction of the Chemical Safety Improvement Act. We view it as a sincere effort to cut through Washington gridlock on the urgent issue of protecting the public from toxic chemicals.

However, we do not support the legislation in its current form. After an initial review, we urge the sponsors and Senator Boxer, Chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, to strengthen the legislation in critical areas. These proposed improvements fit within the framework of the Chemical Safety Improvement Act and we offer them in the spirit of promoting bi-partisan cooperation to enact a program that protects public health and the environment, and drives innovation.

Needed Improvements

1) Protect Vulnerable Populations
The legislation requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assess exposures of sub-populations to chemicals during the course of a safety assessment, but it does not explicitly require that safety determinations protect vulnerable populations from those exposures. This is a critical omission. The National Academy of Sciences and a large body of accepted science have shown that the developing child, pregnant women, and other groups are biologically more susceptible to harm from exposure to toxic chemicals. Some populations are also more vulnerable because of disproportionate exposure, as in the case of communities with a legacy of heavy chemical contamination. The legislation should define "vulnerable populations" and explicitly require that they be protected from aggregate exposure to high priority chemicals. In addition, the safety standard itself needs more clarification to ensure it is strictly health-based and protective.

2) Preserve State Authority
The preemption provisions in the bill would largely prevent states from taking action to address both "high priority" and "low priority" chemicals, even in the absence of federal regulation to protect the public. The waiver provisions included to address these concerns are insufficient and will likely prove cumbersome in practice. Longstanding and important state protections, including California’s Prop 65 law, could be at risk of being preempted. State and local authority to inform and protect the public should be explicitly preserved.

3) Expedite Action on the Worst Chemicals
The legislation attempts to separate the decision about the health and environmental risks of a chemical from the economic and social decisions over how best to manage those risks. (The co-mingling of these decisions was a key failure of the Toxic Substances Control Act.) However, the legislation partially undermines that critical reform by requiring extra red tape before the EPA can phase out a chemical (as compared to other risk management measures.) As the EPA will only want to pursue this option for the very worst chemicals, these provisions could have the perverse impact of slowing down action on those chemicals.

The failure of our current policy was sealed when the EPA was prevented from banning asbestos—one of the world's most notorious substances—after a lengthy rulemaking and subsequent court battle. Congress should not repeat the drafting mistakes that led to that decision in this legislation.

4) Establish Deadlines and Timetables
The Chemical Safety Improvement Act generally lacks deadlines and timetables for EPA to complete a minimum number of assessments and safety determinations. The history of environmental laws is that they achieve their clearest results with such provisions. The sponsors and the committee should develop clear deadlines and minimum work requirements to ensure that EPA has the incentive and resources it needs to implement the new law.

5) Require Adequate Data to Prioritize Chemicals
Chemicals must have adequate data for evaluation before they are prioritized and can be deemed of low concern to the public. The legislation should specify that a chemical should only be designated as low priority in the presence of information sufficient to demonstrate a low risk to human health and the environment.

We look forward to working with the bill sponsors and the Environment and Public Works Committee to make these improvements and to craft a law that can enjoy broad support from the health and environmental communities as well as labor and business. We may ask for additional clarifications or improvements as our analysis of the bill continues.

Much-Needed Legislation Would Protect Americans from Unsafe Chemicals

Washington, DC – Led by Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), 29 senators today introduced the Safe Chemicals Act of 2013. The legislation would provide long overdue fixes to the nation’s broken chemical policies and limit the use of unsafe chemicals linked to cancer and other illnesses.

Andy Igrejas, executive director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a coalition of 450 health, environment, business and labor groups said:

"Americans across the political spectrum have woken up to the fact that unregulated toxic chemicals get into their homes and their bodies. It is uniformly unnerving. The Safe Chemicals Act would establish common sense limits on these chemicals that are broadly popular and long overdue."

Similar to a bill cleared by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in the 112th Congress, the Safe Chemicals Act would go a long way toward protecting Americans from chemicals before they are linked to reproductive and developmental disorders, cancers and other illnesses that are costly to treat and often preventable. Specifically, it would:

  • Require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify and restrict the "worst of the worst" chemicals.
  • Require basic health and safety information for chemicals as a condition for entering or remaining on the market.
  • Upgrade scientific methods for assessing chemical safety.
  • Arm the EPA with the authority it needs to restrict chemicals that pose health and environmental concerns.

# # #

For more information, contact: Tony Iallonardo, at or 202-503-8581.

For Immediate Release
November 17, 2011

Safe Chemicals Act Hearing Builds Momentum for Reform

Washington, DC - Today's Senate hearing on the Safe Chemicals Act was a milestone in the reform effort. Infertility, cancer, and learning disabilities are just some of the health problems linked to toxic chemicals that touch millions of American families. Senators should know that all those families are rooting for their success when they take this issue on.

Senator Lautenberg and Senator Inhofe deserve enormous credit for the dialogue they have undertaken on reform over the last several months and the rare bipartisan atmosphere it has created for this issue on Capitol Hill. Because of that work, there is an enormous opportunity that both parties can seize to make a difference in people's lives. We're encouraged by the statements made by Senators on both sides.

"Senators Lautenberg and Inhofe deserve enormous credit for the dialogue they have undertaken on reform over the last several months..."

We were also encouraged by the very constructive comments of the Consumer Specialty Products Association which represents some of America's best known companies and brands, like Procter and Gamble and SC Johnson. Perhaps because these companies sell directly to consumers they recognize the economic costs of the current collapse of confidence in our federal safety regulations.

The only disappointment in the hearing was the comments of the American Chemistry Council, the main trade group for chemical makers. We hope members of the American Chemistry Council can soon recognize the opportunity to make progress on reform and work constructively with the committee to achieve it in a bipartisan way.


For more information please contact Trevor FitzGibbon at 202.406.0646,

The Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition represents more than 11 million individuals and includes parents, health professionals, advocates for people with learning and developmental disabilities, reproductive health advocates, environmentalists and businesses from across the nation. For more information visit our website at

April 25, 2011 CNN: Pediatricians urge tougher chemical safety law

April 25, 2011 Reuters Health: Pediatricians call for stricter laws for chemicals

April 25, 2011 USA Today: Pediatricians seek better regulation of toxins

April 25, 2011 The Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments Supports Crucial Protection from Dangerous Toxic Chemicals

April 19, 2011 Groups seek reform of toxic substances act

April 19, 2011 Landmark Senate Bill Aims to Reform Toxic Chemicals Regulation

April 19, 2011 Mother Nature News: Lautenberg introduces Safe Chemicals Act

April 14, 2011 Congress Renews Debate Over U.S. Chemical Policy Reform

April 14, 2011 "Safe Chemicals Act of 2011" Introduced Today: Legislation Would Protect American Families from Toxic Chemicals

February 1, 2011 Congress Gears Up Debate Over 35 Year-Old Chemical Law – Broad Coalition Urges Public Health Approach

January 18, 2011 30 States Nationwide to Announce Upcoming Bills to Protect Kids and Families from Toxic Chemicals on Wed. Jan 19

November 8, 2010 States Across the Nation Are Passing Sweeping Chemical Safety Laws, While Congress Lags Behind

October 26, 2010 Lautenberg hearing with CNN's Sanjay Gupta highlights chemical threats to children

September 14, 2010 New Polling Data Indicates Overwhelming Public Support for Chemicals Regulation

August 31, 2010Environmental Council on States Today Passed Resolution Calling for Sweeping Federal Chemical Policy Reform

July 29, 2010 Plastics News: ACC’s Dooley pans proposed chemical safety standard

July 29, 2010 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Chemical Nation: It’s time for an effective federal law

July 28, 2010 Group urges passage of chemical bill

July 23, 2010 U.S. House Takes up Toxic Chemical Reform Bill

July 23, 2010 Chemical & Engineering News: TSCA Reform Bill Introduced

June 2010 Chemical Watch: Chemical Watch briefing: US downstream users seek changes to TSCA proposals

June, 2010 Chemical Watch: U.S. House member Bobby Rush speaks out for TSCA reform: Environmental toxins: No more guessing (PDF)

June 28, 2010 Los Angeles Times: The Los Angeles Times editorializes on chemical reform

June 17, 2010 Head of American Nurses Association says, Stop contamination before it starts

June 10, 2010 EDF’s Richard Dennison blogs: Dispersants are a teachable moment for TSCA reform

June 9, 2010 NRDC: NRDC’s Daniel Rosenberg asks Congress: Re-write the law to protect people from unsafe chemicals

May 11, 2010 Cleveland Plain Dealer: Congress to tackle environmental toxins in revision of 1976 federal chemical regulations

May 4, 2010 Houston Chronicle: Is this good for you? Are you eating bisphenol A?

April 22, 2010 RH Reality Check: The Battle Over BPA

April 22, 2010 Alternet: We need garbage equity and improve regulation of toxins

April 21, 2010 Huffington Post: Kid-Safe Chemicals: News to Use – For All of Us

April 21, 2010 NRDC: Great Opportunity to Protect American Families from Toxic Chemicals

April 20, 2010 The Dake Page: So what happens to the TSCA Inventory under the new Safe Chemicals Act?

April 20, 2010 7GenBlog: Dr Alan Greene explains historic toxic chemical reform

April 19, 2010 Uprising Radio: New Bill on Regulating Toxic Chemicals Shows Promise

April 19, 2010 Huffington Post: To Detox Your Body, Detox Our World

April 17, 2010 Nontoxique Beauty Blog: Introduction of Senator Lautenberg’s Safe Chemicals Act 2010 shows someone is paying attention

April 16, 2010 TIME: Regulation of Toxic Chemicals Faces Tightening

April 16, 2010 Consumer Affairs: Senate Bill Would Revamp Toxic Chemicals Regulation

April 16, 2010 Local15 TV: Industry Must Prove Safety Under Proposed Safe Chemicals Act

April 16, 2010 Natural Foods Merchandiser: New Safe Chemicals Act Introduced

April 16, 2010 Environmental Protection Online: Manufacturers Must Test Chemical Safety in New TSCA Bills

April 16, 2010 Conservation Value Notes: Chemical Reform Safety Gains Momentum In Congress

April 16, 2010 Brownfield Ag News for America: Chemical law reform in the works

April 16, 2010 The Hill: Hazardous chemicals law overhaul would increase power of federal regulators

April 16, 2010 PAN North America: Chemical Policy Reform

April 16, 2010 EHS Today: Congress Introduces Safe Chemicals Act to Reform U.S. Chemical Management

April 16, 2010 American Council on Science and Health: Dispatch: TSCA "Reform"

April 16, 2010 Chemical Watch: Fundamental TSCA reform proposals hit US Congress (Subscription Only)

April 16, 2010 Chemical Watch: US stakeholders react to TSCA reform proposals (Subscription Only)

April 16, 2010 WBZTV: Maine Lauds Federal Chemicals Bill

April 16, 2010 Chemistry World: Congress proposes toxic chemical regulation reforms

April 16, 2010 The New York Times: Lawmakers Seek to Move Quickly on New Toxics Bill, but Challenges Remain

April 15, 2010 Washington Post: Lautenberg bill seeks to overhaul U.S. chemical laws

April 15, 2010 The New York Times: Sen. Lautenberg Introduces Chemicals Reform Bill, Saying Current Regulation 'Is Broken'

April 15, 2010 Green Biz: Chemical Reform Bill Would Shift Burden of Proof to Industry

April 15, 2010 Dr. Greene: Safe Chemicals Act of 2010 Introduced Today

Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families Coalition Press Releases

Listen to 2010 interview with Andy Igrejas about the Safe Chemicals Act

Listen to Pam Miller of Alaska Community Action on Toxics discuss the Safe Chemicals Act

Autism Society: Autism Society Applauds the Introduction of the “Safe Chemicals Act of 2011”

American Nurses Association: ANA Urgues Support For Safe Chemicals Act Of 2011

Center for International Environmental Law: CIEL Applauds Proposed Overhaul of U.S. Chemicals Law

Environmental Justice and Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform: Chemical Reform Urgent for People of Color and Low Income Communities

JustGreen Partnership: "Safe Chemicals Act of 2011" Introduced!

League of Conservation Voters: LCV Statement on Introduction of Safe Chemicals Act

Michigan Network for Children's Environmental Health: Bill to Protect Families from Toxic Chemicals Introduced (PDF)

NRDC: Toxic Substances Control Reform Bill Can Repair Broken Chemical Law

Oregon Environmental Council: Federal Chemical Legislation Introduced Today “Safe Chemicals Act of 2011” Introduced in Senate

Reproductive Health Technologies Project: Safe Chemicals Act of 2011: Press Kit

U.S. PIRG: Washington, D.C.: Senator Lautenberg Introduces Bill to Protect Public health, Reform Toxics Policy

Women's Voices for the Earth: Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 Introduced: Passage would protect women's health, experts say