Regulation of Chemicals

Author(s):  
Lucas Bergkamp ◽  
Adam Abelkop

This chapter examines the regulation of chemicals, with emphasis on commonalities and differences in regulatory approaches. It begins with a brief overview of key concepts that underlie chemicals regulation, explaining what chemicals regulation is, the hazards and risks associated with chemicals, policy principles, informational inputs, and how chemicals are identified. The chapter then considers the general components of chemicals regulation, namely: screening and prioritization, risk assessment and decision analysis, and risk management. It also discusses regulatory fragmentation, risk management through the supply chain, and the complementary roles of regulation and liability systems. Finally, it shows how common aspects of chemical risk laws fit into the EU’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Regulation and the US Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (LCSA).

2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 359-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael E. Belliveau

This article analyzes the history, policies and politics of the modern era of safer chemical policy reform in the United States. In the last decade, state laws have modeled a chemical policy framework to phase out unnecessary dangerous chemicals in favor of safer alternatives. These state drivers, along with market campaigns to reduce downstream business use of hazardous chemicals, have weakened the chemical industry's resistance to fixing the broken federal chemical safety system. The obsolete Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA) has failed to protect public health and the environment and has stifled innovation toward greener chemistry. Health advocates with a progressive policy vision tempered by legislative pragmatism have launched a TSCA reform campaign to challenge chemical industry power in a weak Congress. The opportunity and limits to winning meaningful TSCA reform are characterized and marked as a critical milestone on the path to a truly comprehensive safer chemical policy for the United States.


2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 203-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcella L. Card ◽  
Vicente Gomez-Alvarez ◽  
Wen-Hsiung Lee ◽  
David G. Lynch ◽  
Nerija S. Orentas ◽  
...  

A discussion of the past developments, current practices, and future opportunities in QSAR modeling for new chemical risk assessments.


1983 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph C. Arcos

The legal-scientific control system for toxic substances is embodied in the 79/831 EC Directive in the European Community countries and in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in the United States. The 6th Amendment of the EC Directive and Section 5 of TSCA cover notification of new chemicals and require a Premarketing Notification and a Premanufacture Notification, respectively (both known as PMN). Beyond a commonality of some general information required in the submission on a new chemical (such as chemical identity and molecular structure, proposed categories of use, production or importation level) there are two important differences between the two systems. First, the EC Directive requires as a mandatory part of a PMN submission a specified “base set” of health, environmental, and physicochemical test data; TSCA Section S does not specify a set of mandatory test data but requires, as a part of the PMN submission, data on all health and environmental effects in the possession or control of the notifier, as well as on byproducts, resulting from the manufacture, processing, use, or disposal of the new chemical. Second, the EC Directive is not concerned with either controlling the potential adverse health and environmental effects of a new chemical or with the assessment of risk that these effects represent; these issues are left up to the EC member states to legislate and handle. Forty-five days after submission of an EC PMN, if all notification requirements have been met and if the packaging and labeling requirements comply with the Directive, the chemical may be placed on the market. In TSCA, companies must notify the US EPA 90 days before they intend to begin the manufacturing or importation of a new chemical for commercial use. The 90 days (which may be extended under TSCA to 180) is used by EPA to carry out an initial assessment of the health and environmental risk that the chemical may represent. Should a “reasoned evaluation” of the data submitted and/or otherwise available indicate that the chemical could or does present an “unreasonable risk to health and the environment,” the Agency can, under Sections 5(e) and 5(f), respectively, limit or prohibit the production, use or disposal of the chemical. Both the EC Directive and TSCA mandate the establishment and publication of Inventories of chemicals. The EC Directive Inventory is a closed system, listing only those chemicals which were on the EC market during specified reporting periods; chemicals submitted subsequently will remain “new” so that each subsequent manufacturer or importer must submit a PMN. In contrast, the TSCA Inventory keeps on continuously increasing by those PMN chemicals, the manufacture or importation of which has actually begun. The TSCA assessment framework for chemicals makes a clear distinction between hazard and risk. The hazard of a chemical represents its suspected or established inherent toxicological capabilities to inflict damage on the health of humans, animals, plants, and the environment at-large, through some type of exposure. There is risk, when there is actual exposure to a hazardous chemical; in other words, risk of chemicals represents the overlap of hazard and exposure. The overall process of PMN assessment in the US EPA includes a first phase of risk assessment and a second phase of regulatory disposition. In accordance with the distinction made between hazard, exposure and risk, the stage-setting initial evaluation of PMNs is carried out along two converging procedural channels (representing hazard assessment and exposure assessment) in the risk assessment stage. Following the convergence of the outcomes of the hazard and exposure assessments, the level of risk that a new chemical may represent determines the regulatory disposition (if any) taken subsequently. A key component of the hazard assessment of PMN chemicals at EPA resides in the Structure-Activity Team (SAT). SAT assesses PMNs against a hazard evaluation grid, representing data or estimate categories on chemical and physiocochemical properties, environmental fate, bioaccumulation, irritant properties toward and absorption into living organisms, acute and chronic toxicological and pharmacological effects, generation of xenobiotic metabolic split products, impurities present,, etc. The hazard rating of PMN chemicals (into those of low-, medium-, and high-level concern) is based on a combination of three approaches or data source categories: (a) evaluation of the test data and related information submitted; (b) evaluation of the xenobiotic and/or pharmacological potentialities of the compound regarded singly, as distinct from its possible analogy to other compounds; (c) structure-activity relationship analysis, based on structural analogy to compounds or classes of compounds established to have xenobiotic effects. Only chemicals of substantial concern are led through all steps of the assessment process. Submissions on certain categories of PMN chemicals (e.g., certain water-insoluble high polymers, low/medium hazard level photographic chemicals incorporated into films) receive special procedural treatment and undergo limited assessment.


2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dirk A. Heyen

AbstractIn 2006, the EU adopted the REACH Regulation – the world’s most demanding chemicals regime so far. Even before it entered into force, the European Commission declared its ambition to make REACH a global standard, and several authors see a potential for far-reaching influence via the ‘California effect’, as conceptualized by David Vogel. Economic preconditions are indeed fulfilled with the chemicals industry being highly globalized, the EU as an attractive export market and REACH applying to imports. Following Vogel, firms exporting to the EU might have an incentive to lobby for similar requirements in their country. This article examines whether American chemical producers do, indeed, push for EU-like provisions in the debate on US policy reform. While there is some influence on the US, it is shown that REACH does not (yet) trigger a ‘California effect’. The business case does not seem to be strong enough.


EDIS ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 2006 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael T. Olexa ◽  
Luke D'Isernia ◽  
Laura Minton ◽  
Dulcy Miller ◽  
Sarah Corbett

This handbook is designed to provide an accurate, current, and authoritative summary of the principle Federal and Florida laws that directly or indirectly relate to agriculture. This handbook should provide a basic overview of the many rights and responsibilities that farmers and farmland owners have under both Federal and Florida laws as well as the appropriate contact information to obtain more detailed information. However, the reader should be aware that because the laws, administrative rulings, and court decisions on which this handbook is based are subject to constant revision, portions of this publication could become outdated at anytime. Several details of cited laws are also left out due to space limitations. This document is FE591, one of a series of the Food and Resource Economics Department, UF/IFAS Extension. Published December 2005. FE591/FE591: 2021 Handbook of Florida Water Regulation: Toxic Substances Control Act and the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (ufl.edu)


EDIS ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (3) ◽  
pp. 3
Author(s):  
Michael T. Olexa ◽  
Tatiana Borisova ◽  
Jana Caracciolo

This handbook is designed to provide a summary of the principal federal and state (Florida) laws that directly or indirectly relate to agriculture. Because these laws are subject to constant revision, portions of the handbook could become outdated at any time. The reader should use it as a means to determine areas in which to seek more information and as a brief directory of agencies that can help answer more specific questions.


2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-50
Author(s):  
James T. O'Reilly

Comparative risk assessments in the chemical safety field sometimes adopt a lofty view of the purposes of legislation. This personal essay is not lofty, and it is not just another professor's comparison of the purposes of the European Union's REACH with American regulatory programmes. I write today as an individual, as the last active remaining participant of the small group of industry players in 1975–76 who helped to negotiate the details of the 1976 US Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”). As advocates for industry we won the key arguments over the law's terms and conditions, but the decades since have not shown TSCA to be a triumph for anyone.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document