As Erin has said, more than 62 thousand chemicals were grandfathered in when the EPA came into being, and no legal framework was created for testing. The time for correcting that situation was decades ago, so the entire process needs to be revised and strengthened immediately. In the case of persistent chemicals (those that do not break down into natural components with half lives under two [say] years) approval should not occur. For others, approval should be based on demonstration of non-toxicity at the 3-sigma level by a minimum of two independently conducted studies performed by separate, non-affiliated, accredited institutions. This should be applied to legacy chemicals as well. Let's be scientific for a change!
As Erin has said, more than 62 thousand chemicals were grandfathered in when the EPA came into being, and no legal framework was created for testing. The time for correcting that situation was decades ago, so the entire process needs to be revised and strengthened immediately. In the case of persistent chemicals (those that do not break down into natural components with half lives under two [say] years) approval should not occur. For others, approval should be based on demonstration of non-toxicity at the 3-sigma level by a minimum of two independently conducted studies performed by separate, non-affiliated, accredited institutions. This should be applied to legacy chemicals as well. Let's be scientific for a change!