EPA scraps proposed chemical safety rules

President Barack Obama’s administration has blocked rules for the labeling of certain synthetic chemicals that can mimic hormones and disrupt human health and development — rules that would have required public notification of the results of any research on their health effects.

The Environmental Protection Agency proposed the rules years ago, but recently decided to withdraw them after they were bottled up in the White House Office of Management and Budget, or OMB.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has been investigating what it calls the “human cost of regulatory paralysis,” and scientists at the Environmental Defense Fund are urging the Senate committee to probe why these rules were dropped. 

“This was a pretty simple rule that would simply have had EPA identify publicly several chemicals to be officially deemed chemicals of concern based on a finding that these chemicals may present a risk to human health and or the environment,” said Richard Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund.

Among the chemicals proposed for the EPA list were bispehnol A, phthalates used in cosmetics, and bromiated flame retardants used in furniture foam and computer casings, Denison said. What they share in common is the threat of interfering with bodily functions in the reproduction system, neurological system, immune system and others.

“Each of those chemicals is increasingly of concern because of evidence that even fairly small doses of these chemicals can interfere with our normal functioning of the systems in our body that keep us healthy,” Denison said.

Much of the evidence put up against these chemicals is the result of new science, though, to Denison, it’s enough to raise red flags about their safety. 

Critics of the regulations have said the rules would interfere with free-market powers.

“There’s a tension between company’s legitimate interest in protecting the identity of the chemicals that they’re developing before those chemicals get on the market, and the competing interest of the public and workers and consumers to have a right to know about the health and environmental impacts of chemicals they might be exposed to,” Denison said.

The White House has delayed not just the chemical labeling rules, but other EPA-related rules.

“The dispute here is not whether or not EPA has the authority to issue rules,” Denison said. “The dispute is over the ability of a White House office to interfere with the normal rulemaking process that EPA would otherwise have to follow.”

Though it is within the EPA’s power to notify the market of any dangers, pressure from Congress may explain the White House’s response, Denison said.

“It should be the onus of those who want to continue to use them to demonstrate their safety rather than consumers in the public bearing the burden should they prove to be unsafe,” he said.