Our Stand: The Full Story
Here are some concerns put forth by senators and experts in a hearing from March 4, 2026.
- “So when I reflect on the decades of policy that led to Superfund sites, contaminated drinking water, cancer clusters caused by improper disposal of toxic chemicals, problems that came at an enormous cost, not just in dollars, but to people’s lives, I can’t help but reflect that if the 2016 new chemicals provisions had been there all along, we might have been able to ensure that the chemicals we rely on for our daily lives were safe before they got into our air, water, land, and bodies. I don’t believe that Congress should remove the requirement that EPA formally review new chemicals before they go into commerce.”
- “[An artificial deadline, combined with understaffing, is allowed in several circumstances under this bill.”
- “A simple reauthorization of the fees provision remains a path forward.” (In other words, we don’t have to do anything other than fund the EPA to protect the public, as we have for the last decade.)
- “During a Chemical Subcommittee hearing last October, we heard how PFAS manufacturers knew about the risks their product posed to human health, and yet suppressed this information for decades. If we are going to pursue a conversation about TSCA, we need to put safeguards into place so that industry perspectives are not determinative of regulatory outcomes.”