Law Center Says Strict Chemical Controls Foster Innovation, Markets, Protect People

 

Report on Chemical Regulation

Reproduced with permission from Chemical
Regulation Reporter, 37 CRR 194 (Feb. 18, 2013).
Copyright 2013 by The Bureau of National Affairs,
Inc. (800-372-1033) <http://www.bna.com>

Key Development: A new report says laws and regulations restricting hazardous chemicals spur innovation and benefit commerce.

Potential Impact: The report's argument is likely to be part of anticipated Senate discussion on modernizing the Toxic Substances Control Act.

By Pat Rizzuto

The Center for International Environmental Law released a report Feb. 13 that argued laws and regulations that reduce hazardous chemicals spur innovation, benefit commerce, and protect people and the environment.

Comprehensive laws that require chemical manufacturers to generate information about the hazards of their compounds and that enable regulatory authorities to mandate safer alternatives "drive innovation in chemical and product sectors," according to CIEL's report, Driving Innovation: How Stronger Laws Help Bring Safer Chemicals to Market.

"Our findings show that stricter laws enable safer chemicals to overcome barriers to entry, such as economies of scale enjoyed by the current mix of chemicals, the externalization of costs, and the lack of information about chemicals and products on the market today," wrote the report's author, Baskut Tuncak, staff attorney with CIEL's Chemicals Program.

Pointing to connections between restrictions and the development of alternatives for ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons and for certain phthalates, which have raised concerns about potential developmental problems, Driving Innovation said, "[P]rogressively stricter laws spur the innovation of safer alternatives and can pull safer alternatives into the market."

Environmental health advocates, along with some businesses, are likely to point to the report's arguments when the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee takes up an anticipated discussion of modernizing the Toxic Substances Control Act.


Trade Groups Dispute Findings.

Chemical and manufacturing trade associations disputed the report's premises and recommendations.

Dan Newton, senior manager for chemical risk management policy and advocacy at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA), told BNA: "There is no evidence that stricter chemical laws promote innovation. … [S]tricter laws might increase barriers to the marketplace and fail to provide sufficient confidential business information protection."

Smarter laws, on the other hand, could promote greener chemistries and encourage the development of new chemicals, Newton said.

"There should be incentives to introducing a chemical to the market, rather than putting up barriers to entry," he said.

CIEL's report acknowledged the need to protect "legitimate" confidential business information but said a balance between that need and the public's right to access information is warranted.

Newton said, however, "Unnecessarily publicizing trade secrets penalizes a company for its efforts to tap into the market."


NAM Say Innovation Stifled.

In a statement, Rosario Palmieri, vice president for infrastructure, legal, and regulatory policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, said, "Regulation does not spur innovation. Regulation and regulatory uncertainty hinder innovation and foreclose potential avenues of research that may result in tomorrow's technological breakthroughs."

In its statement, the American Chemistry Council said it strongly agreed "innovation is an important part of improving human health and the environment.

"Likewise, ensuring that our nation's regulatory system stimulates innovation, and does not stifle it, is paramount to long-term economic growth, job creation and strengthening global competitiveness."

However, the premise that the federal government can mandate innovation is false, ACC said.

The regulatory burden imposed on companies by the European Union's REACH Regulation draws staff and funds away from more innovative work, ACC said, referring to the regulation, evaluation, and authorization of chemicals regulation (EC 1907/2006).

"We continue to support the modernization of TSCA, but strongly disagree that creating a cumbersome and onerous regulatory system would lead to new chemistry innovations and jobs," ACC said. "The creation of new and better products must continue to be driven by the marketplace."

Copyright 2013, The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.

See also: Stronger Laws for Hazardous Chemicals Spur Innovation press release.