A new Republican-backed bill in the U.S. House would rewrite key parts of the country’s main chemical safety law in ways that public-health and environmental advocates say would sharply reduce protections for consumers, workers, and ecosystems. It’s described as an attempt to roll back major reforms Congress made in 2016 to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)—changes that were designed to strengthen the government’s ability to evaluate and restrict dangerous chemicals.
The measure was drafted by Gary Palmer. Critics argue that it shifts the legal standard and procedures in a way that makes it easier for chemicals to enter the market and harder for regulators to block them. One of the most consequential revisions would remove the EPA’s current mandate to ensure new chemicals “won’t harm people,” replacing it with a weaker requirement that the agency show a chemical probably won’t cause harm—an evidentiary change opponents say could let hazardous substances proceed even when red flags exist.
The bill would also narrow what kinds of science can be used in evaluating health risks and elevate industry’s role in review. The legislation would give greater preference to industry-funded science, require more structured engagement with companies during new chemical reviews, and add procedural pressure on agency staff by tying reviews to a 90-day clock—after which the EPA administrator would have to explain delays to industry. Advocates argue this could incentivize rushed decisions before scientists have fully completed assessments.
Another major flashpoint is what happens after a chemical is found risky. Under current law, TSCA requires the EPA to impose restrictions when it concludes a substance poses an “unreasonable risk.” The bill would eliminate that requirement, and it would further condition any controls on being “reasonably feasible” and cost-effective for companies—language opponents say invites litigation and could discourage strong limits or bans.
The proposal also changes how exposures are evaluated. It would sometimes prevent EPA from considering cumulative exposures across multiple routes (for example, inhalation plus drinking water plus skin contact). It would also allow companies to sue EPA during the risk assessment process, rather than waiting until a final rule is issued—something advocates warn could bog down science-based reviews in constant legal fights.
Worker safety is another concern. The bill would bar regulations stricter than Occupational Safety and Health Administration exposure limits, yet OSHA itself acknowledges many of its permissible exposure limits are “outdated and inadequate” for protecting worker health.
Supporters, including American Chemistry Council CEO Chris Jahn, argue the bill would make the system more “timely” and “predictable.” Opponents like Earthjustice attorney Daniel Savery and Environmental Defense Fund attorney Maria Doa counter that it prioritizes industry profits over health and would weaken oversight just as public anxiety about toxic chemicals—including PFAS “forever chemicals”—is rising.
