Yesterday, The Huffington Post featured a post authored by Holly Lohuis of the Ocean Futures Society (OFS), who claimed she was “duped” into joining the Coalition for Chemical Safety. I responded to Ms. Lohuis’ post directly and would like to post my response in this space as well.
As Executive Director of the Coalition for Chemical Safety, I applaud Holly Lohuis for her commitment to our environment and for highlighting the fight to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act. I do want to take issue with her critique however.
CCS is very clear on its website about its principles. The Coalition for Chemical Safety is for a comprehensive yet balanced reform of our nation’s chemical safety laws.
We believe the law should be such that protecting public safety is its top priority. The EPA should have the power to determine chemical safety and restrict chemicals that are deemed not safe for use as intended.
It also means, however, that the law should promote the kind of chemical innovation that leads to better solar cells (powered by chemically based films), electric cars (powered by chemically based batteries), more powerful microchips (etched by chemical compounds) and so much more that makes America a technology leader. It should also promote the American jobs those chemical innovations provide, rather than sending them overseas.
The Coalition for Chemical Safety is also very clear on who its members are – ranging from large trade associations (yes, including the American Chemistry Council) to small businesses and individuals across the country. They’re all listed on our website. No one is duped.
If Holly Lohuis is fighting for a law that protects public safety while preserving American innovation and supporting American jobs, she may not be a CCS member but she shares our goals.
Furthermore, Ms. Lohuis’ post was picked up by Richard Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund on his blog, and I took the opportunity to respond on his post as well to clarify a few things.
The Coalition for Chemical Safety did not approach OFS to join. In fact, OFS approached the Coalition and signed up as a member via our website. As is often our practice, a representative of the Coalition contacted OFS and very clearly stated who we were, who our members were and what we were about.
After hearing us out, OFS opted to withdraw its membership.
In other words, the Coalition was open and transparent and lost a member for it, and that is fine with us. That in no way comports with my definition of someone who was “duped.” In fact, it is quite the opposite.
What this kind of soap opera has to do with the urgent business of reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act, I do not know. If you agree that reform is needed, and you agree that it must protect public safety, promote American innovation and preserve American jobs, then you agree with the Coalition – irrespective of what group you choose to join.
The Virginia Coalition for Chemical Safety posted a video on YouTube featuring Coalition supporters in Virginia who favor reforming current Toxic Substances Control Act regulations in a way that leads to greater innovation, safety and job growth in the United States. The video features:
John Paul Woodley, Jr., former Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) and former Deputy Attorney General of Virginia for Government Operation.
Courtney Kuester, a mother who discusses the importance of having safe chemicals in the home
Paul Repak, Certified Safety Professional, DuPont Spurance Plant, discusses the Toxic Substances Control Act from the standpoint of the chemical industry.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg held a hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health today regarding chemical safety reform. CCS would like to commend Sen. Lautenberg for hearing from a diversity of players in the debate over reform of our nation’s chemical safety laws. It is widely believed this third such hearing is the final one to be held before introduction of new legislation to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
An article in Furniture Today reminds those in the furniture industry the importance of being involved with efforts to reform chemical safety standards.
The reasons for this are twofold. First and foremost, like all other industries involved with CCS, we have a stake in chemical safety in order to protect ourselves, our families, our employees, and our customers. We need the peace of mind knowing that a new law based on the latest research will minimize the threat posed by the chemicals that people in our industry are exposed to on a daily basis. After all, chemicals are used in the production of nearly all office and home furniture, from the butyl acetate-based lacquers and acrylic coatings used to protect wood furniture, to the polyurethane foam used to provide cushioning in chairs.
Secondly, the right approach to chemical safety reform has the potential to strengthen our business. We will have more credibility with customers if they know that we adhere to modern, nationwide safety standards. Moreover, having one set of rules rather than a patchwork of wholly different, or even conflicting, state safety standards—as we have now—will make manufacturing, shipping and sales between states both safer and more cost effective. And if the furniture industry is actively involved in the reform process, we can help to ensure that the new standards are conceived and applied fairly, so that a level playing field is maintained in our very competitive marketplace.
Because of the immense value chemicals play in the production and packaging of furniture, the furniture industry must support reform of TSCA so that all manufacturers are held to the same set of federal regulations in regard to safe chemical usage. If we remain proactive on this issue, we can help inform the process and make certain that the chemicals that we rely on are fairly evaluated based on their proper use and comprehensive testing. We owe as much to the communities we serve.
(Guest post from Joe Stafford, Vice President of Correlated Products, Inc. Stay tuned for more guest posts from CCS members throughout the country.)
As a Vice President of a chemical distribution and manufacturing business and—more importantly—a father of three children, I agree with much of what is being talked about among CCS members on this blog and elsewhere.
Reform of our chemical safety standards is long overdue; Americans aren’t being protected equally because of wildly different state laws regulating chemicals—a fact that also presents significant obstacles for many businesses like mine that have customers in different states.
For instance, while we’re based in Indiana, we often ship products across America to places like Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Without uniform guidelines, chemical standards in Michigan may become more strict. Yet other states where we have customers could become more lenient, or sometimes control for different safety factors altogether. It seems that every time I have to fill an order out of state, we need to waste countless hours looking up shipping procedures and regulations for its destination.
That’s why it’s not only critical to enact reform now, but also that policymakers involve industry leaders and scientists in putting together new nationwide standards. We need to prioritize child safety and conduct an extensive review of the research about chemicals on the market today. Reforms should absolutely advocate for the testing of chemicals in order of their potential human exposure and should evaluate these chemicals based upon their proper use.
But, as others on this blog have pointed out, it is essential that a new chemical safety law provides enough flexibility for businesses to thrive and create jobs. This is especially true since 21st century innovations and green technologies are likely to be chemical-based.
The 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act provides the Environmental Protection Agency’s chemical regulatory framework, while allowing manufacturers to keep many of their chemicals secret. Only a few years ago, most industry leaders maintained that TSCA was working fine. But lately, shifts in the political climate have convinced some people that change is inevitable, and they want to ensure their interests are represented.
“On both ends of the spectrum, from the environmental side to the proponents for the industrial side, there is a general agreement that [current law] is not up to snuff,” says Joe Householder, head of the Coalition for Chemical Safety, a business-backed group pushing for TSCA reform.
Manufacturers want to protect their trade secrets for obvious reasons, and say only “confidential business information” is kept from the public. Only a few EPA officials are privy to the details of many chemicals, and they’re not allowed to share that information with state regulators or even with many other officials in their own agency, critics say. In 2005, the EPA’s top expert on flame retardants reportedly said the contents of a retardant she was researching were kept secret even from her. Even some people in the industry who say TSCA works well concede that a growing slice of the public feels they’re being kept in the dark.
“If you’re just patted on the head and told, ‘Have faith, everything’s taken care of, but we just can’t tell you about it,’ you’re not going to have much confidence in the system,” Householder says.
You can scour the CCS website in great detail and while you will find the information you need about the latest in the pursuit of TSCA reform, you won’t find arguments about specific chemicals. Raging today are debates over the future of a number of chemicals. Some state legislatures are considering bans of specific chemical products and activists on both sides are spending gobs of dollars assailing or defending them.
We’re not going there.
It is our view that TSCA reform done right will address those product specific concerns. A law that properly prioritizes chemicals that concern the general public, scientists and the regulatory community and then sets out the proper protocol for testing them to see if they are safe to use as intended with an EPA that has the resources and authority to act gets to every chemical that is now a hot button public policy issue.
We do have members with strong opinions about specific chemicals and we respect those opinions. However, CCS is going to focus its advocacy on the quest for comprehensive reform.
There’s a practical political point to this. Becoming mired in product specific fights draws down resources that could be better spent on what the country really needs – a better law that governs all chemicals and not just one.
Jason Schmidt of Helena, Montana — and a member of the Montana Coalition for Chemical Safety — has a strong piece in his local paper on the need for TSCA Reform built on the three-legged stool of safety, innovation and jobs.
While many people across the country are making a similar case, the fact that Jason owns a business called Phanes Solar and Renewables is, in itself, a strong argument for getting it right. TSCA reform won’t just impact chemical companies, chemical workers and chemical consumers. It will hit just about every modern business that’s out there. Solar energy, electric cars, semiconductors, you name it. Chemicals are a big part of all of them so folks like Jason need to be heard. Read his op-ed in the Billings Gazette here.
Let’s be clear. The Coalition for Chemical Safety absolutely believes that protecting American jobs should be an important factor in TSCA reform. But it’s not just the chemistry industry that will be affected by that reform.
Let’s just take one iconic American industry and use it as an example – automobiles. There’s no need to recount the woes of the Big Three. Everybody knows.
What everybody doesn’t know is everything those iconic American companies are doing to retool for a modern economy. Of course, you’ve probably heard of the Chevy Volt, the soon to be marketed electric car. But, the fact is, each of these companies is working on modern designs that could vastly reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil.
Chemistry plays a big role in this. Lightweight materials for body and engine parts are made with chemicals. The cars, be they straight up electric or hybrid, run on batteries, which are plastic boxes full of chemicals – and American scientists are working hard to make them more powerful and longer lasting.
All of that can come to a screeching halt if TSCA reform is done wrong. Some of the chemicals involved are harmful if misused. If used as intended, however, they are safe. In short, if TSCA is done right, the chemical innovation that will lead to the cars of the future, made here in America, will continue. This means we’ll have a cleaner environment, a continuing leadership role for the United States in a major sector of the global economy, and jobs, jobs, jobs.
It is about safety for all of us. It is about innovation for all of us. It is about jobs for all of us, whether those jobs are in chemistry or down the economic stream.
