An investigation into how TSCA implementation fails to protect vulnerable populations from toxic chemical exposures
Imagine a toxic chemical cloud drifting toward an elementary school playground during recess. As the invisible threat approaches, hundreds of children continue playing, unaware of their potential exposure. Meanwhile, in a nearby nursing home, elderly residents with compromised immune systems have even less capacity to flee or protect themselves. While this might sound like a scene from a disaster movie, data from a major national surveillance system reveals that such scenarios have occurred multiple times across the United States 1 .
We are living amid what pediatricians sadly describe as a "silent pandemic" of diseases, disabilities and premature death linked to chemical exposures worldwide 7 . Scientists have found hundreds of toxic chemicals in children's bodies even before they are born 7 . The World Health Organization estimates that millions of lives are lost annually due to chemical exposures 3 .
"Exposure to hazardous substances often affects the most vulnerable populations, among them people living in poverty, indigenous peoples, workers, migrants and minorities."
At the center of this public health challenge stands the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the primary U.S. law regulating industrial chemicals. When Congress updated TSCA in 2016 through the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, it promised a new era of chemical safety management. But nearly a decade later, evidence shows the amended law has systematically failed to protect those most vulnerable—children, the elderly, communities near industrial facilities, and workers 3 .
Enacted in 1976, the Toxic Substances Control Act provides the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with authority to regulate chemical substances in U.S. commerce 2 . For forty years, the original law was widely viewed as ineffective, managing to regulate fewer than 10 chemicals out of more than 86,000 in commerce 3 .
The 2016 amendments represented the most significant overhaul in the law's history, intended to fix its fundamental flaws 3 . The amended TSCA created a more robust framework for chemical safety with mandatory risk evaluations, requirements to protect vulnerable populations, and use of best available science.
Required assessment of chemicals in commerce on a specified schedule
Requirement to consider "potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations"
Use of scientific evidence to determine "unreasonable risk" 3
A critical failure in TSCA implementation lies in how regulators have narrowly defined the scope of chemical exposures considered in risk evaluations. Rather than comprehensively assessing all possible exposure pathways, the EPA has excluded several important sources of exposure based on questionable rationales 3 .
For example, in evaluating asbestos—a known human carcinogen—the agency considered only current uses while excluding ongoing exposures from legacy uses in existing buildings and infrastructure 3 . This means risks from deteriorating asbestos in schools, homes, and automotive brakes were simply not counted in the risk evaluation, despite their clear public health significance.
While the amended TSCA specifically requires EPA to account for "potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations," implementation has failed to translate this mandate into meaningful protections 3 . The agency's first ten chemical risk evaluations completed under the amended law:
While controlled laboratory studies provide crucial data on chemical toxicity, a natural experiment occurs whenever accidental chemical releases happen near facilities serving vulnerable populations. Researchers analyzed data from the Hazardous Substances Emergency Events Surveillance (HSEES) system to understand the frequency, causes, and consequences of such incidents 1 .
The study examined three years of data (2003-2005) from a large, multi-state surveillance system that collected detailed information on acute chemical releases 1 . Researchers identified events where:
For each qualifying incident, investigators documented the chemicals involved, industry type, contributing factors, health impacts, evacuation requirements, and duration of the emergency response 1 .
The findings revealed 231 incidents meeting the study criteria, with concerning patterns emerging about threats to vulnerable populations 1 :
A fundamental requirement of the amended TSCA is that the EPA must use the best available science in its chemical evaluations. However, analyses reveal that the agency has used flawed systematic review approaches that fail to properly identify and evaluate relevant evidence 3 .
Unlike the European Union's REACH regulation, which places the burden of safety testing on chemical manufacturers, TSCA still requires the EPA to shoulder the burden of obtaining necessary data to evaluate existing chemicals 3 . This creates a resource imbalance that hampers thorough safety assessments.
When you use multiple chemical products at home or encounter various pollutants in your environment, your body doesn't process each chemical in isolation—but TSCA implementation often pretends it does. The law does not require cumulative risk assessment, which would evaluate combined exposures to multiple chemicals 3 .
This omission has particular significance for vulnerable populations, who often experience higher background exposures to environmental contaminants. Fenceline communities near industrial facilities, for example, may face multiple exposure pathways through air, water, and soil simultaneously, creating combined toxic effects that current TSCA evaluations ignore 3 .
| Tool/Method | Primary Function | Relevance to Vulnerable Populations |
|---|---|---|
| Hazardous Substances Emergency Events Surveillance (HSEES) | Tracks acute chemical releases and their public health impacts | Identifies hotspots and patterns of chemical incidents near vulnerable facilities 1 |
| Geographic Information Systems (GIS) | Maps chemical release locations in relation to schools, nursing homes, etc. | Determines proximity of vulnerable populations to chemical hazards 1 |
| Systematic Review | Evaluates and synthesizes scientific evidence on chemical hazards | Should identify all relevant studies on susceptibility, though current TSCA implementation often fails to do so properly 3 |
| TSCA Inventory | Lists chemical substances in U.S. commerce | Provides baseline data on chemicals requiring evaluation, though many lack adequate safety testing 4 |
Despite the current shortcomings, scientific analysis points to concrete improvements that could transform TSCA into the protective law it was intended to be
EPA should comprehensively evaluate all exposure pathways, including legacy uses, disposal, and unintended releases 3 .
Risk evaluations should explicitly account for children's heightened vulnerability through appropriate adjustment factors 3 .
Implementing rigorous, transparent methods for evaluating scientific evidence would ensure risk determinations reflect true hazards 3 .
Assuming workers always use proper protective equipment creates dangerous illusions of safety; real-world conditions must inform risk evaluations 5 .
Evaluating combined exposures to multiple chemicals would better reflect real-world conditions faced by vulnerable populations 3 .
The political landscape for these reforms remains uncertain. The Trump EPA has suggested revisiting the TSCA risk evaluation framework, potentially maintaining assumptions about worker protection and definitions of "best available science" from the first Trump administration 5 . Meanwhile, EPA's funding and staffing face potential cuts that could further hamper chemical safety work 5 .
The amended TSCA represents a landmark piece of legislation with the potential to significantly reduce chemical exposures for all Americans, particularly the most vulnerable. Yet this potential remains largely unfulfilled due to implementation choices that deviate from both the law's requirements and established scientific principles 3 .
Failing to remedy the current shortcomings will result in "continued systematic underestimation of risk for all chemicals" going forward.
The consequence of these failures is that generations of children continue to be born "pre-polluted" with hundreds of industrial chemicals in their bodies 3 7 . The "silent pandemic" of environment-related disease continues disproportionately affecting those with the least resources to protect themselves 7 .
Proper implementation of TSCA wouldn't just mean bureaucratic compliance—it would represent a commitment to the basic human rights to life, health, and a healthy environment, particularly for those most exposed and susceptible 7 .