Yes it's great news Susie, we just need for the House and Senate bills to align and all should be good!
I've been doing a little research on it today and it seems some of the big stores are pulling products even before this bill takes effect, here's my favourite sentence out of the following article.
" Earlier this year, Ashley Furniture Industries Inc. and Macy’s Inc. said they would ban flame retardants from all of their furniture products after consumer activists jumped on news reports about possible cancer risk. "
When they hear about our product, watch out.
Why Chemical Firms Are Seeking More U.S. Regulation Senate passes bill, favored by chemical industry, that could affect vast
ENLARGE
Retailers have stopped selling bottles and other products that contain bisphenol-A, or BPA, a common ingredient in certain plastics that some studies published in academic journals have linked to hormonal anomalies in animals. PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES
By
ALEXANDRA BERZON
Updated Dec. 17, 2015 8:44 p.m. ET 9 COMMENTS
Chemicals used to make baby bottles, paint strippers and furniture have become lightning rods for consumer activism, state regulation and restrictions by big chain stores. That has prompted manufacturers to do something unusual: ask for more federal regulation of their products.
Due in large part to that industry pressure, observers say, a yearslong push for more-robust federal regulation may soon culminate. On Thursday evening the U.S. Senate passed a bill with bipartisan support that could affect a vast swath of the economy, from manufacturers to Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
The U.S. House of Representatives earlier this year passed its version, the TSCA Modernization Act, with just one vote against it.
Advertisement
The more comprehensive Senate bill is favored by the chemical industry and some environmental groups, but opposed by other environmental groups. The differences in the House and Senate bills will now need to be worked out before the bill is sent to the President.
“This is so significant to every manufacturer, everyone who does business,” Republican Sen. James Inhofe said on the floor of the Senate after the bill passed.
Advertisement
“This brings us a major step closer to enacting the reform we need,” said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund.
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, which governs the federal government’s scientific examination and regulation of chemicals sold in the U.S., makes it almost impossible for the government to control chemicals that were already in the marketplace when the law went into effect. Trade groups that represent chemical makers are asking that the new rules make it easier to regulate some of the tens of thousands of those chemicals.
These groups say they are hoping that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency clearance might quell some of the momentum recently gained by environmental and health safety activists in persuading big retail outlets and state and local governments to set their own standards.
For example, Toys “R” Us Inc. and other retailers have stopped selling bottles and other baby products that contain bisphenol-A, or BPA, a common ingredient in certain plastics that some studies published in academic journals have linked to hormonal anomalies in animals. Studies funded by industry groups have found BPA in products to be safe.
Other retailers have faced pressure to stop selling paint thinner containing methylene chloride, an industrial chemical that can cause respiratory problems or even death in spaces that aren’t well ventilated and has been deemed by the U.S. government agencies to be potentially carcinogenic.
“There is a problematic perception that chemicals on the market aren’t screened for safety,” said Anne Kolton, a spokeswoman for the American Chemistry Council, which represents more than 100 large chemical companies, including Dow Chemical Co. and DuPont Co., which last week agreed to merge in a deal valued at more than $120 billion. “[The chemicals] are not closely regulated and that’s been exploited by a lot of different groups for a lot of different reasons,” she said. “Having a stronger system in place is good for everyone, including the industry.”
Under the nearly 40-year-old TSCA law, the EPA has to consider the financial cost of regulation when evaluating a chemical, a burden that has made it highly difficult for the agency to put restrictions even on many substances known to be highly dangerous at any level, such as asbestos.
Under the new proposed rules, the EPA would be able to base its decisions instead on health concerns. The new laws would mandate that the EPA review a certain number of chemicals each year—likely a fraction of the thousands of chemicals that are currently unregulated. Environmental safety activists contend it would take decades to work through the backlog. The new laws would also allow companies to ask the EPA to review particular chemicals.
Industry proponents are hoping new rules would stop momentum by retailers and states to ban particular chemicals in consumer products—a practice the industry calls “retail regulation” when done by stores. Earlier this year, Ashley Furniture Industries Inc. and Macy’s Inc. said they would ban flame retardants from all of their furniture products after consumer activists jumped on news reports about possible cancer risk. Lowe’s Cos. and Home Depot Inc.recently said they would stop selling vinyl flooring containing phthalates, which have been tied to cancer and other health problems in some studies published in academic journals and reports issued by government agencies.
Stephen Holmes, a Home Depot spokesman, said the company still believes the vinyl flooring it previously sold was safe. He said the company decided not to sell flooring with phthalates because other flooring products were available.
In both cases the manufacturers of the chemicals in question say their products aren’t harmful at typical exposure levels, and the EPA doesn’t currently regulate those chemicals.
At Target Corp., the retailer rates products based on the chemicals they contain and then offers incentives to suppliers for products that rate as safer through its measurement tools, such as better display in stores. The chain doesn’t disclose its ratings, which apply to product categories including beauty, household cleaning and baby care.
Wal-Mart maintains a list of 10 of what it considers hazardous chemicals that it encourages manufacturers to avoid. The company hasn’t made the list public, but says that it will issue a report on that program next year. Some American companies base their lists of chemicals they consider hazardous on other governments’ designations, such as the European Union or Canada.
In addition, nearly 30 states, led by California, have passed more than 100 laws regulating chemicals, creating a patchwork of regulations that manufacturers must navigate.
Industry proponents say they are hoping that EPA reviews would create uniform standards that may be less stringent than those of Europe or Canada, and would alleviate uncertainty over the possibility of future prohibitions.
Some environmentalists have rejected components in the Senate bill they say would make it too difficult for states to issue their own regulations and create a list of “low priority” chemicals.
“We think it’s an invitation to exonerate chemicals based on limited information,” said Andy Igrejas, who leads a coalition of groups that engage in consumer campaigns to ban toxic chemicals.
Others involved in chemical safety say that while the new rules governing the federal chemical oversight would be helpful, they are still skeptical that the reviews could be conducted quickly enough to satisfy consumers and expect that retail regulation will continue.
Bill Pease, a scientist for GoodGuide, the company that set up Target’s chemical-review system, said: “In the consumer market there’s really not much patience for allowing chemical risk assessments to play out…for decades.”
ENLARGE
