EPA Quietly Withdraws Two Proposed Chemical Safety Rules

[G_j]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3882262

EPA Quietly Withdraws Two Proposed Chemical Safety Rules

Kate SheppardSep 06, 2013

WASHINGTON -- The Environmental Protection Agency this week quietly withdrew two draft rules dealing with the regulation of chemicals. The potential rules were in limbo at the Office of Management for several years.

One of the rules was a proposal to add Bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical included in many water bottles and other plastic products that has been linked to a number of potential health concerns, to the list of "chemicals of concern" that would be subject to more scrutiny. The EPA also proposed listing eight different types of phthalates, another group of chemicals often used in plastic products, and several types of flame retardants known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs).

One of the rules was a proposal to add Bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical included in many water bottles and other plastic products that has been linked to a number of potential health concerns, to the list of "chemicals of concern" that would be subject to more scrutiny. The EPA also proposed listing eight different types of phthalates, another group of chemicals often used in plastic products, and several types of flame retardants known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs).

The EPA first submitted the proposal to OMB in May 2010, stating that the agency was "concerned that the hazards of these substances and the magnitude of human and/or environmental exposure indicates that they may present an unreasonable risk to human health and/or the environment." The Toxic Substances Control Act allows the EPA to flag chemicals of concern for further analysis. That rule had been at the Office of Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), the division of OMB that is supposed to review agency rules, for more than three years. OIRA is supposed to take a maximum of 90 days to review agency rules.

A second rule that EPA withdrew would have forced companies to disclose to the public the chemicals used in products and the health and safety studies the companies have conducted on those chemicals -- much of which companies have been allowed to protect as "confidential business information." That rule had been at OMB since 2011.

..more..

[ananda]

1. The EPA was nobbled.

Sigh

[jsr]

2. "Unreasonable burdens on business"

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2011/01/19/obama-vows-to-cut-regulatory-burdens-on-business/
Obama Vows to Cut Regulatory Burdens on Business

[djean111]

3. "Our" government does not work for us any more.

None of it.
And yeah, I know there is a list of things we all should be grateful for - but for most of them, the end result is more money for corporations, and more money from us, and some of them are social things that cost a negligible amount of money in the great scheme of things, and have merely been used as carrots on sticks for political purposes.
The list of things to avoid because "my" government does not give a shit is growing. Nothing in cans unless clearly marked no BPA - but now I see that labeling like that will be discontinued? - nothing in plastic, no frozen chicken anything, no seafood from Asia, and so on. I expect to read that lead will be re-introduced to paint, I am afraid, because we still manufacture that for African countries.
I almost feel like the corporations have started a huge in-you-face public fuck you to consumers. The TPP, no labels if the labels might inform the consumer that the product might be dangerous to health, etc. It is like they have been operating fairly under the radar, and are now just saying screw that, here is why we bought the government, here is what we are telling the government to do.

Some countries in the EU forbid GMO seeds? Make an EU commission to TELL the EU countries what seeds they can or cannot use. Why waste money on individual countries? Stuff like that.

Soon all chemicals - fracking, food, things we buy - will not be disclosed, in the name of profit.
While we are watching the Syrian circus on TV. No, what is happening in Syria is not funny, it is horrific. But I don't think how we people feel about it makes a damned bit of difference.

Saturday morning rant, sorry. I could just not read this stuff, but I have a family to try and protect.

[Brainstormy]

4. Chemicals of concern?

Adding BPA to a "list" of "chemicals of concern." The irony just burns. The United States already has the highest rates of hormone-dependent cancers (cancer of the breast, endometrium, ovary, prostate, testes and colon) in the world. Our children especially live in an ocean of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, to the point that puberty is routinely beginning at age 7. BPA and the phthalates have been implicated for decades! Canada, the European Union countries, Japan, China, and Malaysia have imposed bans. Even the FDA has acknowledged BPA hazards and has some restrictions at least.

But it doesn't even make "the list" at the EPA?

What will it take for the "protection" part of the EPA to extend to individual citizens and not just the corporate bottom line?

[G_j]

5. "Chemicals of concern?"

yes, I caught the irony too..