|
News & Analysis | REG•WATCH Blog | Press Room
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Voluntary Chemical Reporting Doesn't Pay Off
An investigation by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel examines a little-known EPA program which is supposed to study the effects of common chemicals on children's health. Journal Sentinel reporters Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger found major flaws.
Among other things, the investigation finds the program (the Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program) is relying on advisory panels stacked with industry scientists, has had little luck in getting chemical makers to cooperate with requests for data, and has been broke since August.
Instead of regulating the chemical companies, the EPA invited them to interpret and present data to a panel of scientists on the risks and exposures of chemicals they made. The approach was hailed by chemical company lobbyists as "breathtakingly significant." …
The format was simple. Companies were to present data about their chemicals' toxic properties and likely exposure to a panel of scientists. That panel would then determine if the chemical was safe to use around children. If not enough was known, the EPA would ask the company to provide more information. …
The voluntary nature of the program has proved to be a problem with enforcing safety, children's health advocates say. Although the EPA can request more information about a chemical from the compound makers, companies are not required to answer. And many don't.
"The EPA has no hammer," said Melanie Marty, chairwoman of the EPA's Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee.
The investigation also finds a gross lack of transparency in the program. EPA does not publicly announce the dates of meetings, and the agency does not separate out the program's budget, making it nearly impossible to determine the program's cost to taxpayers.
Jay Berkelhamer, former president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, last year urged EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson to abandon the program in favor of "a mandatory program with stricter deadlines and a more transparent, accountable review system." Meanwhile, Johnson "repeatedly points to the program in public statements as proof that his agency is committed to protecting children," according to the Journal Sentinel.
Posted by Matt Madia
|