May 2015
PROPOSED U.S. TSCA LEGISLATION WOULD LOCK-IN WEAKER CHEMICAL
RULES
The United States chemicals law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) enacted in 1976 is
famously outdated. Unfortunately, the 2015 legislation (S. 697) as adopted by the U.S. Senate
Environment and Public works Committee on April 28, 2015 would continue to permit hundreds
of hazardous chemicals that are being prohibited elsewhere, leaving U.S. consumers and the
environment at risk while also undermining U.S. competitiveness.
There is virtually no safety data for the vast majority of chemicals on the U.S. market. By
comparison, the European Union enacted REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization of
Chemicals) in 2007 to implement a policy of “no data- no market”. Before chemicals can be
placed on the market, the industry must supply safety data.
Under REACH, 170 chemical substances already have been categorized as Substances of Very
High Concern (SVHC) on the basis of their inherent properties, such as being carcinogenic. The
SVHC are listed in the so-called Candidate List. The goal is to phase out the SVHC chemicals
with safer substitutes. From the Candidate List, SVHC are prioritized for the Authorization
Annex. Authorization Annex chemicals have a phase out date subject to possible time-bound,
use-specific authorizations pending the implementation of viable alternatives. The links to the
Candidate List and Authorization Annex are provided below.
The REACH program plans to have all “relevant currently known SVHC” chemicals submitted to
this substitution process by 2020. As a result, the EU will be phasing out hundreds of REACH
hazardous chemicals by 2020, thereby incentivising innovation of safer alternatives, markets and
jobs (see SVHC Roadmap to 2020, below).
Other contrasts include:
The EU restricts 1,037 carcinogens and mutagens in the workplace (strict control measures and
substitution is required when alternatives are feasible). The US OSHA restricts 13 carcinogens.
The EU has banned over 1,300 substances in cosmetics versus 11 in the US (see link, below).
China is also moving in the direction of substitution having recently published a substitution
catalogue. Others, e.g., the Republic of Korea also have a policy to drive the substitution of
hazardous chemicals. The same hazardous chemical consequences facing the U.S. with respect to
the EU, outlined below, may soon occur in other markets.
The consequences of enacting a law that locks in a vastly weaker chemical safety standard:
1. It will allow the continued use of hazardous chemicals even when safer alternatives exist,
subjecting U.S. consumers to preventable health and environmental hazards.
2. It will put the U.S. at risk of becoming a dumping ground for obsolete, hazardous
chemicals and products not allowed in the EU or other markets.
3. It will give the EU a competitive advantage by allowing them to market all their products
in the U.S., while the U.S. will be prohibited from exporting products that do not comply
with the EU.
4. It will put U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage in the development of safer
substitutes. Companies that enter and secure the safer alternatives’ markets will have a
competitive advantage, leaving U.S. companies behind with obsolete chemicals and
costly liabilities.

EU transparency registration number 9832909575-41

 5. EU member states contribute to and drive the SVHC phase-out process. In the U.S.
legislation, any federal pre-emption over state laws will discourage technological
innovation of safer substances while locking in weak safety standards nationwide.
6. It could open the door to potentially costly legal claims against U.S. companies for
damages from chemicals banned in the EU based on sound scientific evidence.
In sum, the U.S. legislation is actually worse than no legislation because it would prolong
indefinitely the use of hundreds of hazardous chemicals that will be phased out, e.g., in the EU.
Comprehensive legislative reform is unlikely for many years if this legislation is adopted. And
while legislation drafted to satisfy the chemical sector may appeal to some at first sight, the
economic disadvantages are many, especially for downstream users, such as product
manufacturers. Instead, the U.S. could score a win-win at home and abroad by prioritizing the
protection of U.S. consumers, the environment and the U.S. economy with a comprehensive law
that surpasses REACH. Without a such a comprehensive law, U.S. consumers will continue to be
exposed to dangerous chemicals banned and obsolete in the EU, and U.S. companies will suffer
trade disadvantages and a stagnation of competitive innovation.
REACH Candidate List: 161 substances + recent addition of 9 substances [145 Carcinogen,
Mutagen, or Repro-toxic (CMR); 20 Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT); 5 Endocrine
Disrupting Chemicals (EDC)]:
http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/candidate-list-table
REACH Authorization Annex (31 substances - 29 CMR and 2 PBT):
http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/addressing-chemicals-of-concern/authorisation/recommendationfor-inclusion-in-the-authorisation-list/authorisation-list
SVHC Roadmap to 2020 Implementation Plan (9 December 2013):
http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/19126370/svhc_roadmap_implementation_plan_en.pdf
EU Cosmetics – Annex II List of Substances Prohibited in Cosmetic Products:
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?
fuseaction=search.results&annex_v2=II&search
For further information, contact:
Dr. Kevin Stairs
EU Chemicals Policy Director, Greenpeace
Kevin.stairs@greenpeace.org
+32-476-961376