FDA Rejects Phthalate Petition

/in ,

On May 19, 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it has denied two petitions to ban phthalates in food packaging.  In conjunction with denying the petitions, the FDA accepted a petition requesting that the Agency stops authorizing 23 phthalates for use in food containers as they are no longer used by industry.

In addition to being in food containers, phthalates are used as additives in cosmetics, detergents, and shower curtains.  Industry often uses them to soften plastics.  Although allowed in many products, the 2008 Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act bans a concentration of more than 0.1 percent of di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP); dibutyl phthalate (DBP); or benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP) in all children’s toy and childcare articles.  Being exposed to concentrated amounts of phthalates can cause reproductive and developmental issues.

Multiple groups, including the Environmental Defense Fund and Earthjustice, have petitioned the FDA in the last decade to block the authorization of phthalates in food packaging, but the petitions have always failed, with the FDA citing a lack of information to justify blocking authorization of phthalates.

FDA’s acceptance of the petition to stop authorizing certain phthalates was due to the industry no longer using those substances. As the industry has abandoned use of those phthalates, the FDA found it appropriate to stop their authorization.  Currently, there are eight phthalates that the FDA still authorizes.  Shortly after the FDA’s announcement, they issued a request for information regarding current uses, levels, dietary exposure, and safety data for those phthalates.

PFAS From Certain Plastic Can Violate Chemicals Law, EPA Says

/in , ,

Earlier this year, EPA released a letter to manufacturers, processors, distributors, users, and those that dispose of fluorinated high-density polyethylene (HDPE), informing them of possible violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  EPA determined through recent testing that certain PFAS have unintentionally formed during or following the process of fluorinating polyolefins. Manufacturers and processors of fluorinated polyolefins modify polymers with fluorine to create high-performance barriers.  These barriers are then used in the storage and transport of various products to keep the product inside the container without notable permeation.  During some methods of fluorination, such as in the presence of oxygen, PFAS can occur as a byproduct.

EPA first noticed the unintentional formation of PFAS in containers used in storing and transporting pesticides, and it is researching whether this problem occurs in other HDPE products. This effort to restrict human health and environmental exposure to PFAS is one of many steps the Agency has outlined in its PFAS Strategic Roadmap.

EPA’s letter reminds the HDPE industry that certain long-chain PFAS are subject to a TSCA Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) (See 40 CFR § 721.10536). Generally, chemical substances created during the manufacturing process that does not have a separate commercial purpose are considered byproducts and are exempt from SNUR requirements under 40 CFR § 721.45(e). But certain long-chain PFAS byproducts produced during the manufacture of fluorinated polyolefins do not meet the requirements of the byproducts exemption and therefore require a SNUR. These rules require the manufacturer to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the manufacture (including import) or processing of these chemicals for significant new use.

The Agency encourages the industry to review the relevant regulations at 40 CFR § 721. Any questions on the topic can be directed to the Existing Chemicals Risk Management Division in the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics at TSCA_PFAS@epa.gov.

Chlorpyrifos Food Tolerance Revoked  

/in ,

Earlier this year, EPA denied all objections to and hearing requests for a rule that terminates the use of the chlorpyrifos pesticide on food crops. As a result of the new rule, producers may no longer apply any chlorpyrifos to food or feed products, although there is an exemption for farmers to use the pesticide on certain exported food products.

Following its registration in 1965, farmers have used chlorpyrifos as an insecticide on food crops such as soybeans, corn, fruit and nut trees, and vegetables. It has also been used for agricultural purposes such as cattle ear tags, poultry houses, turkey, swine, and dairy barns.

There is significant potential for the pesticide to cause neurological effects, particularly in pregnant women and children. Children who are exposed to chlorpyrifos may experience lifelong intellectual disabilities and lowered IQ levels. Farmworkers who use the pesticide or work in fields where the pesticide has been used are also at increased risk of adverse health effects from exposure with including effects on the nervous system such as headaches, blurred vision, muscle weakness, and seizures. The chemical has been the focus of environmental advocacy groups because of its toxicity to wildlife, particularly birds, fish, aquatic vertebrates, and bees. For example, these groups argue that the chemical impacts the health and existence of nearly 1,400 animals and plants protected under the Endangered Species Act.

In 2000, the EPA banned chlorpyrifos for residential indoor use but continued allowing the use of these chemicals on food products. In 2014 and 2016, the EPA published data confirming that all toddlers were being exposed to chlorpyrifos at levels 140 times greater than the Agency had determined was safe.  However, the Agency did not take actions to limit chlorpyrifos pesticide use at that time. In 2017, the EPA again failed to take action to ban chlorpyrifos. The Agency decision argued that additional scientific evidence was needed. Meanwhile, beginning in 2019, some states banned or restricted the use of chlorpyrifos, including California, Maryland, New York, and Hawaii. In recent years, many toxic torts lawsuits have been filed against chlorpyrifos manufacturers and distributors. Many of these cases are still ongoing.

The EPA’s current final rule banning chlorpyrifos in food was issued in response to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ order directing the EPA to issue a final rule after the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Pesticide Action Network North America filed a petition with the Court. These organizations had previously petitioned the Agency for a ban, which was denied under the Trump administration in 2017 and again in 2019, leading to its Ninth Circuit challenge. EPA administrator Michael S. Regan addressed the delay in EPA’s action against the chemical, stating, “[t]oday EPA is taking an overdue step to protect public health. Ending the use of chlorpyrifos on food will help to ensure children, farmworkers, and all people are protected from the potentially dangerous consequences of this pesticide.”

Flame Retardant Rule Do-Over Sought By EPA Granted in Federal Case

/in ,

On June 23, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted EPA a request for voluntary remand on a risk management rule for decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE).  This allows EPA to reconsider the rule at issue and make changes they deem necessary.  DecaBDE is a flame retardant added to the plastics used in many products on the market, such as televisions, computers, and upholstered articles. The January 2021 risk management rule prohibits manufacturing or importing decaBDE for all products after February 28, 2022, 60 days after the publication of the final rule.  The rule gives the hospital curtain industry 18 months to come into compliance, and 3 years for new aerospace vehicles. Replacement parts for motor and aerospace vehicles were granted an exclusion from the prohibition of manufacturing, processing, and distribution of decaBDE.

Petitioners opposing EPA in this matter are a coalition consisting of the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Yurok Tribe, the Consumer Federation of America, Learning Disabilities Association of America, and the Center for Environmental Transformation.  the coalition, argues that EPA has had more than a year to review unidentified provisions of the final rule.  The coalition also asserts that EPA’s Final Rule is inadequate because it lacks 1) risk management measure to reduce exposure of decaBDE generally, 2) an exclusion for unrestricted recycling of plastics containing decaBDE, and 3) restrictions on releases of the chemical to the air, water, or land.

In 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had also granted EPA’s request to revisit two other chemical risk evaluations, including the one for hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD which is also a flame retardant).  Along with granting EPA’s request to reconsider the rule, the Ninth Circuit denied the petitioners request to impose deadlines on the reconsideration and potential amendment of the rule.

Biological Opinion Proposes Malathion Mitigation Measures

/in ,

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) nationwide final biological opinion (BiOp) for Malathion has prompted EPA to take steps to protect a number of endangered species that were identified as being threatened by the insecticide.  Malathion is an organophosphate insecticide use on a wide variety of food and non-food crops to kill insects systemically and on contact.  It is also used as a mosquito adulticide.  The BiOp was prompted after EPA released a biological evaluation on malathion in January 2017EPA’s evaluation found the insecticide was likely to affect both aquatic and terrestrial animals by inhibiting and enzyme necessary for synapse and neuromuscular function, leading to sublethal effects and mortality.

FWS collaborated with EPA and the malathion technical registrants to create the BiOp.  The BiOp also includes information provided by stakeholders, non-governmental organization, and members of the public who commented on EPA’s initial evaluation.  The BiOp states that malathion is likely to jeopardize 78 different species and destroy or adversely affect 23 habitats.  FWS proposed mitigation measures that would reduce the application rates, create no spray zones, and apply label changes for the pesticide users to follow.  One proposed mitigation measure for reducing the application rates would restrict application when rain is predicted and when certain types of crops are in bloom. The purpose of these mitigation measures is to minimize the likelihood of exposure to different species and reduce the affects to their development and habitats.

The BiOp states specific measures and mandatory label instructions will be available through EPA’s Bulletins Live! Two website, which provides information on endangered species, along with other relevant information.  Registrants were asked to submit amended labels to EPA by June 29, 2022.

State of Washington Regulates PFAS In Lieu of Cosmetics Ban

/in ,

A proposal in Washington state has stalled in the state House, after passing their Senate, that would have banned cosmetics that contain phthalates, formaldehyde, and PFAS.   The proposal, Senate Bill 5703, states that legislature finds certain chemicals in cosmetic products to be linked with various negative health effects, such as cancer, birth defects, and damage to the reproductive system. It further states that if enacted, it would have prohibited the sale and distribution of any cosmetics containing these and an additional 31 different substances such as ortho-phthalates, phenolic compounds, parabens, and lead compounds beginning January 1, 2025.

Although Senate Bill 5703 did not progress, the governor did sign into law House Bill 1694, which allows the state department of ecology to recognize and regulate consumer products containing PFAS.  The bill gives the ecology depart the authority to restrict PFAS product to any limit.   The state’s department of ecology is directed to determine an initial set of regulatory actions regarding PFAS consumer products by June 1, 2024 and must adopt rules to implement the initial set of determinations of regulatory actions by December 1, 2025.  Washington has also created a $266,00 fund for identifying and testing cosmetics for the purpose of determining which cosmetics present harmful effects.

Washington is not the first state to ban hazardous substances from cosmetics.  In 2020, California passed a ban on cosmetics containing harmful substances, identifying some PFAS chemicals.  Maryland took the same course of action in 2021.  In addition, several other states, such as New Hampshire, Minnesota, Michigan, and Maine have begun drafting legislature to restrict PFAS in cosmetics.

EPA Takes Steps to Regulate PFAS in Commerce

/in ,

On March 16, 2022, EPA announced that the Agency would be taking two steps to further regulate PFAS in commerce. First, EPA notified manufactures of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) that they are obligated to comply with existing TSCA requirements to prevent unintentional PFAS contamination. Second, EPA stated that the Agency will remove two types of PFAS from the Safer Chemical Ingredients List (SCIL).

EPA provided notice that manufacturers, importers, processors, distributors, users, and other entities who engage in the disposal of HDPE containers and other plastics containing fluorinated polyolefins must adhere to the significant new use notice requirement under TSCA. This notice was provided via an open letter to the HDPE industry that was initially posted on March 16, 2022, and then reissued with minor revisions on March 24, 2022.  Here, EPA reminded the HDPE industry that the process of fluorination can lead to the unintentional manufacture of PFAS (e.g., byproducts).  Furthermore, EPA stated that the manufacture of certain PFAS, including long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylates, via fluorination of polyolefins is considered a significant new use under TSCA because the byproducts exemption provided at 40 CFR § 721.45(e) does not apply. Specifically, this exemption does not apply because these PFAS are not “used only by public or private organizations that (1) burn it as a fuel, (2) dispose of it as a waste, including in a landfill or for enriching soil, or (3) extract component chemical substances from it for commercial purposes.” Therefore, a significant new use notification (SNUN) must be submitted to EPA at least 90 days before initiating such use so that the Agency can review the potential risks of this new use before industry can place the product into the stream of commerce.

The two PFAS that EPA will be removing from the SCIL, CASRN 449177-94-0 and 452080-67-0, were initially placed on the list in 2012.  In October of 2021, EPA began revisiting its previous PFAS endorsements pursuant the PFAS Strategic Roadmap. These two chemicals were subsequently removed from the list based on “a growing understanding of the toxicological profiles for certain PFAS, and incomplete information on the potential health and environmental effects of these substances.” Henceforth, these products that contain these PFAS will not be eligible Safer Choice certification. In addition, existing products containing these substances, that have received the Safer Choice certification, must be reformulated to maintain said certification.

EPA Implements Collaborative Research Program to Support PMN Reviews

/in , ,

On February 24, EPA announced a new effort “to modernize the process and bring innovative science to the review of new chemicals.”  In addition, the effort is expected to “increase the transparency of the human health and ecological risk assessment process.”  The Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) is collaborating on this effort with the Agency’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) and other federal entities including the National Toxicology Program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

The draft Strengthening the Science and Process to Evaluate New Chemicals Under TSCA; TSCA New Chemicals Collaborative Research Program: Problem Statement, Vision and Action Plan was released for public comment on March 9.  Written comments will be accepted through April 26, 2022.  In addition, stakeholders may comment at a virtual public meeting on April 20 and 21, 2022.  Instructions for registering for the meeting are available here.

EPA explains that the Collaborative Research Program (CRP) “will refine existing approaches and develop and implement new approach methodologies (NAMs) to ensure the best available science is used in TSCA new chemical evaluations.”  Components of this effort include:

  • Updating the methodology for using data from analogous chemicals to determine potential risks from new chemicals where health effects data on the new substance are not available.
  • Updating and augmenting the models used for predicting a chemical’s physical-chemical properties and environmental fate/transport, hazard, exposure, and toxicokinetics.
  • Developing a decision support tool to integrate the information streams used in new chemical risk assessments into a final risk assessment.

The docket for this effort is EPA-HQ-OPPT-2022-0218.

 

IRIS Review of PFHxA and its Related Salts

/in ,

EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program is developing assessments for five PFAS:  perfluorobutanoic acid [PFBA], perfluorohexanoic acid [PFHxA], perfluorohexane sulfonate [PFHxS], perfluorononanoic acid [PFNA], perfluorodecanoic acid [PFDA], and their associated salts.  On February 2, EPA released the draft IRIS assessment for PFHxA.

The IRIS assessment followed a systemic review protocol that outlines the related scoping and problem formulation efforts, including a summary of other federal and state assessments of PFHxA. The protocol also lays out the systematic review and dose-response methods used to conduct the review.

The review found that PFHxA exposure is likely to cause hepatic, developmental, and hematopoietic effects in humans.  In addition, the review reported that current evidence suggests that PFHxA exposure might cause endocrine effects in humans.

PFAS Found in L’Oréal Cosmetics

/in ,

A class action lawsuit has been filed in a New York federal court alleging that L’Oréal USA failed to disclose its Waterproof Mascara Products contain PFAS. Third-party testing revealed that PFAS are present in several of L’Oréal’s waterproof mascaras. PFAS are commonly found in cosmetics because of their durability, spreadability, and waterproof and oilproof properties While PFAS are largely unregulated in cosmetics at the federal level although the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) Office of Cosmetics and Colors has authority to do so under the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, consumer demand for PFAS-free products has led companies such as Sephora and Ulta Beauty to designate PFAS-free brands as “clean” beauty brands.

The Complaint states that since at least 2018, the company has misleadingly and fraudulently advertised its Waterproof Mascara Products. Plaintiffs allege that the mascaras were labeled as safe, effective, and high quality, utilizing phrases such as “ophthalmologist tested’ and “hypoallergenic,” yet packaging and ingredient lists failed to disclose the presence of PFAS.

According to the Complaint, L’Oréal, with exclusive knowledge of the formulas, ingredients, and suppliers, knew or should have known the waterproof mascara products contained or had a material risk of containing PFAS. Additionally, Plaintiffs assert that L’Oréal should have known that the presence or material risk of PFAS was a material consideration to consumers. The Complaint alleges that had consumers been aware of the presence of PFAS they would not have purchased the products or would not have purchased them at a premium price.

The case is Hicks v. L’Oreal USA Inc., S.D.N.Y., No. 1:22-cv-01989, 3/9/22.