Skip to Navigation
Skip to Content
Share this page

Support PSR!

Your membership supports PSR's work to reduce global warming, eliminate toxics in our environment and abolish nuclear weapons. YOU make our work possible. Thank you.

Donate Now »

Heat Advisory: Protecting Health on a Warming Planet
by Dr. Alan Lockwood

Drawing on peer-reviewed scientific and medical research, Dr. Lockwood meticulously details the symptoms of climate change and their medical side effects.

On sale now! Enter code M17ENV25 at checkout for 25% discount.

TSCA Reform

The need for truly health protective reform is evident. Studies continue to be released documenting the impacts of environmental toxics on health, and rates of chronic diseases continue to rise. A study by New York University reveals endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDC) in the European Union (EU) are likely to contribute substantially to disease across the lifespan:  over $100 billion a year in health care costs in the EU for diseases associated with EDCs, including IQ loss, ADHD, infertility, diabetes and other disorders that have been increasing in the U.S. The researchers also report that chemicals contribute "substantially" to obesity, diabetes, and male reproductive disorders. The estimated health care cost associated with chemicals in plastics is at least $28 billion per year, according to the NYU study.

Needless to say, PSR has been involved in the efforts to prevent exposures to toxic chemicals for a long time. And since the ‘90s we’ve recognized the connection between lax chemical regulation and the health of our patients and communities.

Unfortunately, SB 697 would not improve our current chemical management and regulatory system in a manner that prevents disease.

SB 697- Critical Flaws:

  • The schedule for reviewing chemicals as hazardous and high priority is still too slow;
  • Inadequate funding mechanisms- industry fees would be capped at 25% of the program or $18 million;
  • Low priority loophole-EPA could designate as many chemicals as they like as low priority i.e. "safe" on the basis of limited information, without completing a full safety assessment and without the ability of folks to challenge this designation because there is no judicial review process;
  • Preemption-states would be preempted from taking new actions to regulate any "high priority" chemical for which EPA has initiated a safety review. The safety review and regulation process could take years to complete. This is one of the ways the bill is weaker than current law;
  • States wouldn’t be allowed to co-enforce or adopt EPA restrictions on chemicals (weakening of current law) and the waiver process for States to set more protective standards than EPA is much more onerous than current law;
  • New rules make it harder for EPA to regulate chemicals in consumer products -- even if EPA declares a chemical unsafe they would have limited authority to regulate products containing that chemical. EPA would have to prove that the product presented a "significant source of exposure." This would significantly impede EPA’s ability to safeguard health;
  • EPA’s authority over imported products is weakened- they would have a more difficult time preventing consumer products containing toxic chemicals from getting into the U.S;
  • No action is required on chemicals already known to be toxic like asbestos or persistent bio-accumulative toxins;
  • Safety reviews do not have to take into account aggregate exposure to all sources of a chemical when assessing safety or consider the impacts of exposure to other chemicals. Further there is no requirement for assessments of the exposures and risks that could result from spills;
  • It retains the less health protective standard for assessing chemicals, "no unreasonable risk of harm" instead of the "reasonable certainty of no harm" standard utilized to assess pesticides on fruits and vegetables; and
  • While the safety standard definition does not explicitly require a cost benefit analysis, if and when a chemical does not meet the standard a determination about whether any restrictions will be put in place requires a cost benefit analysis "to the extent practicable" based upon certain factors.  See Section 6(d)(4)
Page Updated March 17, 2015

Action Alerts

More action alertsĀ»


  • Saving Energy, Saving Lives: The Health Impacts of Avoiding Power Plant Pollution with Energy Efficiency

    PSR and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)'s new report examines the public health benefits and medical cost savings of cutting annual electric consumption by 15 percent. Read more »

  • Natural Gas Health Impacts Symposium

    PSR is proud to have participated in "Natural Gas Infrastructure and Public Health," a high-powered conference in Boston that brought together university researchers, public health departments and concerned citizens. Watch Environment & Health Director Barbara Gottlieb's overview presentation here, timestamp 11:10 - 46:05. Read more »

  • Fracking Compendium 5 Water Excerpt

    Given the timely and important consideration of the issue by state officials in Florida, Physicians for Social Responsibility, along with Concerned Health Professionals of New York, has released excerpts from the upcoming Fifth Edition of the Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking. Released in Miami in advance of the full report, this new document contains an up-to-date analysis and compilation of the science on water contamination risks from drilling, fracking, and associated activities. Read more »

In the Spotlight

  • March 3, 2018
    WPSR Annual Dinner and Fundraiser
    Join Washington PSR for a reception, a delicious meal, keynote address by David Korten, presentation of the 2018 Paul Beeson and Malcolm Peterson awards, and a live auction.