Subject(s)
Environmental Policy , Global Warming , Supreme Court Decisions , United States Environmental Protection Agency , Environmental Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , Global Warming/legislation & jurisprudence , Global Warming/prevention & control , United States , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislation & jurisprudenceABSTRACT
The 2016 Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg TSCA) amended the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to mandate protection of susceptible and highly exposed populations. Program implementation entails a myriad of choices that can lead to different degrees of public health protections. Well-documented exposures to multiple industrial chemicals occur from air, soil, water, food, and products in our workplaces, schools, and homes. Many hazardous chemicals are associated with or known to cause health risks; for other industrial chemicals, no data exist to confirm their safety because of flaws in 1976 TSCA. Under the 2016 Lautenberg amendments, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must evaluate chemicals against risk-based safety standards under enforceable deadlines, with an explicit mandate to identify and assess risks to susceptible and highly exposed populations. Effective public health protection requires EPA to implement the Lautenberg TSCA requirements by incorporating intrinsic and extrinsic factors that affect susceptibility, adequately assessing exposure among vulnerable groups, and accurately identifying highly exposed groups. We recommend key scientific and risk assessment principles to inform health-protective chemical policy such as consideration of aggregate exposures from all pathways and, when data are lacking, the use of health-protective defaults.
Subject(s)
Chemical Safety/legislation & jurisprudence , Conservation of Natural Resources/legislation & jurisprudence , Conservation of Natural Resources/methods , Hazardous Substances/toxicity , Humans , Public Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Risk Assessment/trends , United States , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislation & jurisprudenceABSTRACT
Children's environmental health (CEH) has a 25-year history at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), during which the agency has advanced CEH through research, policy, and programs that address children's special vulnerability to environmental harm. However, the Trump administration took many actions that weakened efforts to improve CEH. The actions included downgrading or ignoring CEH concerns in decision-making, defunding research, sidelining the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee, and rescinding regulations that were written in part to protect children. To improve CEH, federal environmental statutes should be reviewed to ensure they are sufficiently protective. The administrator should ensure the EPA's children's health agenda encompasses the most important current challenges and that there is accountability for improvement. Guidance documents should be reviewed and updated to be protective of CEH and the federal lead strategy refocused on primary prevention. The Office of Children's Health Protection's historically low funding and staffing should be remedied. Finally, the EPA should update CEH data systems, reinvigorate the role of the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee, and restore funding for CEH research that is aligned with environmental justice and regulatory decision-making needs. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(1):124-134. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306537).
Subject(s)
Child Health/history , Child Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Environmental Health/history , Environmental Health/legislation & jurisprudence , United States Environmental Protection Agency/history , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislation & jurisprudence , Government Regulation , History, 20th Century , History, 21st Century , Humans , Politics , United StatesSubject(s)
Federal Government , Politics , Research Personnel , Science/legislation & jurisprudence , Advisory Committees , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S./legislation & jurisprudence , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S./standards , Climate Change , Science/standards , United States , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislation & jurisprudence , United States Environmental Protection Agency/standardsSubject(s)
Aedes/genetics , Evaluation Studies as Topic , Mosquito Control/methods , Mosquito Vectors/genetics , Aedes/virology , Animals , Dengue/epidemiology , Dengue/prevention & control , Dengue/transmission , Dengue/virology , Female , Florida/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Mosquito Control/legislation & jurisprudence , Mosquito Vectors/virology , Public Opinion , United States , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislation & jurisprudence , Zika Virus Infection/epidemiology , Zika Virus Infection/prevention & control , Zika Virus Infection/transmission , Zika Virus Infection/virologyABSTRACT
The Delaney Clause of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act became law in 1958 because of concerns that potentially harmful chemicals were finding their way into foods and causing cancer. It states, "[n]o additive shall be deemed to be safe if it is found to induce cancer when ingested by man or animal, or if it is found, after tests which are appropriate for the evaluation of the safety of food additives, to induce cancer in man or animal." The United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) and United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA, prior to implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act) were charged with implementing this clause. Over 60 years, advances in cancer research have elucidated how chemicals induce cancer. Significant advancements in analytical methodologies have allowed for accurate and progressively lower detection limits, resulting in detection of trace amounts. Based on current scientific knowledge, there is a need to revisit the Delaney Clause's utility. The lack of scientific merit to the Delaney Clause was very apparent when recently the US FDA had to revoke the food additive approvals of 6 synthetic flavoring substances because high dose testing in animals demonstrated a carcinogenic response. However, US FDA determined that these 6 synthetic flavoring substances do not pose a risk to public health under the conditions of intended use. The 7th substance, styrene, was de-listed because it is no longer used by industry. The scientific community is committed to improving public health by promoting relevant science in risk assessment and regulatory decision making, and this was discussed in scientific sessions at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 2020 Annual Meeting and the Society of Toxicology (SOT) 2019 Annual Meeting. Expert presentations included advances in cancer research since the 1950s; the role of the Delaney Clause in the current regulatory paradigm with a focus on synthetic food additives; and the impact of the clause on scientific advances and regulatory decision making. The sessions concluded with panel discussions on making the clause more relevant based on 21st-century science.
Subject(s)
Carcinogenicity Tests , Carcinogens/toxicity , Food Additives/toxicity , Legislation, Food , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislation & jurisprudence , United States Food and Drug Administration/legislation & jurisprudence , Animals , Dietary Exposure/adverse effects , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Government Regulation , Humans , Policy Making , Risk Assessment , United StatesSubject(s)
Politics , Research Personnel , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislation & jurisprudence , United States Environmental Protection Agency/organization & administration , Environmental Policy/economics , Environmental Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , Morale , Trust , United States , United States Environmental Protection Agency/economicsSubject(s)
Environmental Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , Federal Government , Leadership , Politics , United States Environmental Protection Agency/organization & administration , United States Environmental Protection Agency/standards , Animals , Humans , Public Health/standards , United States , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislation & jurisprudence , United States Environmental Protection Agency/trendsSubject(s)
Education, Graduate , Environmental Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , Politics , Research Personnel/education , Research Personnel/psychology , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislation & jurisprudence , Creativity , Ecology , Education, Graduate/standards , Freedom , United States , Water Pollution/analysis , Water Pollution/prevention & controlSubject(s)
Federal Government , Global Warming/legislation & jurisprudence , Global Warming/prevention & control , Renewable Energy/legislation & jurisprudence , Electricity , Greenhouse Effect/economics , Greenhouse Effect/legislation & jurisprudence , Paris , Renewable Energy/economics , Taxes/economics , Taxes/legislation & jurisprudence , United States , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislation & jurisprudenceSubject(s)
Environmental Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , Policy Making , Science , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislation & jurisprudence , United States Environmental Protection Agency/organization & administration , Air Pollution/legislation & jurisprudence , Air Pollution/prevention & control , Commerce/legislation & jurisprudence , Commerce/standards , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Leadership , Mercury/analysis , Particulate Matter/analysis , Public Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Research Personnel , Science/standards , United States , Vehicle Emissions/legislation & jurisprudenceSubject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Environmental Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , Federal Government , Politics , Public Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Science/legislation & jurisprudence , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S./ethics , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S./legislation & jurisprudence , China , Democracy , Emigration and Immigration/legislation & jurisprudence , Foreign Professional Personnel/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Pandemics , Research Personnel/legislation & jurisprudence , Time Factors , United States/epidemiology , United States Environmental Protection Agency/ethics , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislation & jurisprudence , United States Food and Drug Administration/ethics , United States Food and Drug Administration/legislation & jurisprudenceABSTRACT
Exposure to atmospheric particulate matter (PM) exacerbates respiratory and cardiovascular conditions and is a leading source of premature mortality globally. Organic aerosol contributes a significant fraction of PM in the United States. Here, using surface observations between 1990 and 2012, we show that organic carbon has declined dramatically across the entire United States by 25-50%; accounting for more than 30% of the US-wide decline in PM. The decline is in contrast with the increasing organic aerosol due to wildfires and no clear trend in biogenic emissions. By developing a carbonaceous emissions database for the United States, we show that at least two-thirds of the decline in organic aerosol can be explained by changes in anthropogenic emissions, primarily from vehicle emissions and residential fuel burning. We estimate that the decrease in anthropogenic organic aerosol is responsible for averting 180,000 (117,000-389,000) premature deaths between 1990 and 2012. The unexpected decrease in organic aerosol, likely a consequence of the implementation of Clean Air Act Amendments, results in 84,000 (30,000-164,000) more lives saved than anticipated by the EPA between 2000 and 2010.
Subject(s)
Aerosols/analysis , Air Pollutants/analysis , Air Pollution/analysis , Particulate Matter/analysis , Aerosols/chemistry , Carbon/chemistry , Environmental Monitoring/legislation & jurisprudence , Environmental Monitoring/methods , Fossil Fuels/analysis , Geography , United States , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislation & jurisprudence , Vehicle Emissions/prevention & controlABSTRACT
Strong evidence now supports the notion that organophosphate pesticides damage the fetal brain and produce cognitive and behavioral dysfunction through multiple mechanisms, including thyroid disruption. A regulatory ban was proposed, but actions to end the use of one such pesticide, chlorpyrifos, in agriculture were recently stopped by the Environmental Protection Agency under false scientific pretenses. This manuscript describes the costs and consequences of this policy failure and notes how this case study is emblematic of a broader dismissal of scientific evidence and attacks on scientific norms. Scientists have a responsibility to rebut and decry these serious challenges to human health and scientific integrity.
Subject(s)
Chlorpyrifos/toxicity , Environmental Pollutants/toxicity , Government Regulation , Organophosphates/toxicity , Pesticides/toxicity , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislation & jurisprudence , Agriculture , Environmental Exposure , Humans , Policy , United StatesSubject(s)
Advisory Committees/legislation & jurisprudence , Advisory Committees/organization & administration , Federal Government , United States Department of Defense/economics , Advisory Committees/economics , Nuclear Weapons , United States , United States Department of Defense/legislation & jurisprudence , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislation & jurisprudence , United States Environmental Protection Agency/organization & administrationSubject(s)
Budgets/legislation & jurisprudence , Federal Government , Politics , Research Personnel/economics , Research Personnel/psychology , Research/legislation & jurisprudence , Stress, Psychological , Animals , Congresses as Topic/organization & administration , Expeditions/economics , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economics , Research/economics , Research/organization & administration , Salaries and Fringe Benefits/economics , Unemployment/psychology , United States , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislation & jurisprudence , United States Food and Drug Administration/legislation & jurisprudence , United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration/legislation & jurisprudenceSubject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/administration & dosage , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Citrus sinensis/microbiology , Crops, Agricultural/microbiology , Drug Residues/adverse effects , Plant Diseases/microbiology , Plant Diseases/therapy , Animals , Anti-Bacterial Agents/analysis , Anti-Bacterial Agents/pharmacology , Aspergillosis/epidemiology , Citrus sinensis/drug effects , Crops, Agricultural/drug effects , Drug Residues/analysis , Drug Resistance, Microbial/drug effects , Environmental Monitoring , Farmers , Florida/epidemiology , Humans , Insect Vectors/drug effects , Oxytetracycline/administration & dosage , Oxytetracycline/analysis , Oxytetracycline/pharmacology , Plant Diseases/prevention & control , Program Evaluation , Risk Assessment , Streptomycin/administration & dosage , Streptomycin/analysis , Streptomycin/pharmacology , United States , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislation & jurisprudenceABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, or FQPA, required the Environmental Protection Agency to set allowable levels for pesticides in a way that would "ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue." The act stipulated that an additional tenfold margin of safety for pesticide risk assessments shall be applied to account for pre- and postnatal toxicity and for any data gaps regarding pesticide exposure and toxicity, unless there are reliable data to demonstrate that a different margin would be safe for infants and children. DISCUSSION: To examine the implementation of the FQPA-mandated additional margin of safety, this analysis reviews 59 pesticide risk assessments published by the EPA between 2011 and 2019. The list includes 12 pesticides used in the largest amount in the U.S.; a group of 35 pesticides detected on fruits and vegetables; and 12 organophosphate pesticides. For the non-organophosphate pesticides reviewed here, the EPA applied an additional children's health safety factor in 13% of acute dietary exposure scenarios and 12% of chronic dietary exposure scenarios. For incidental oral, dermal and inhalation exposures, additional FQPA factors were applied for 15, 31, and 41%, respectively, of the non-organophosphate pesticides, primarily due to data uncertainties. For the organophosphate pesticides as a group, a tenfold children's health safety factor was proposed in 2015. Notably, in 2017 that decision was reversed for chlorpyrifos. CONCLUSIONS: For the majority of pesticides reviewed in this study, the EPA did not apply an additional FQPA safety factor, missing an opportunity to fully use the FQPA authority for protecting children's health.