From the U.S. Government Accountability Office, www.gao.gov Transcript for: Other Countries’ Assessment of Hazardous Chemicals Description: Audio Interview by GAO staff with Alfredo Gomez, Director, Natural Resources and Environment Related GAO Work: GAO-16-111R: Chemicals Management: Observations on Human Health Risk Assessment and Management by Selected Foreign Programs Released: October 2015 [ Background Music ] [ Narrator ] Welcome to GAO's Watchdog Report, your source for news and information from the U.S. Government Accountability Office. It's October 2015. It's the Environmental Protection Agency's job to safeguard public health and the environment. This includes assessing and controlling risks posed by thousands of commercial and sometimes toxic chemicals. Yet problems have kept EPA's work in this area on GAO's High Risk list since 2009. A team led by Alfredo Gomez, a director in GAO's Natural Resources and Environment team, recently reviewed how other countries assess toxic chemicals. GAO's Jacques Arsenault sat down with Alfredo to talk about what they found. [ Jacques Arsenault: ] For starters, can you tell me about how the U.S. deals with toxic chemicals and why assessing them is important? [Alfredo Gomez:] So there are thousands of chemicals in commercial use in the U.S., and an additional thousand chemicals are added every year into the marketplace. These chemicals, while they provide a wide range of benefits to consumers, exposure to certain chemicals can have adverse public health effects, or impact the environment. Now, in terms of how the U.S. deals with it, Congress enacted various laws since the 1970s and these laws assess and manage risks associated with chemical exposures. There are also several programs that were set up. The EPA relies on quality information about the risks posed by chemicals since it has to make scientific decisions, for example, to keep our drinking water safe, our air clean, and it relies on this information to do that. [Jacques Arsenault:] So what are some of the challenges that EPA faces then, in assessing and controlling toxic chemicals? [ Alfredo Gomez: ] EPA faces several challenges. So, for example, the first thing is that EPA has to prove that a chemical is unsafe. It also relies on data from animal and human studies, and these studies can take several years and be expensive to do. EPA has also faced challenges banning and limiting the production or use of chemicals due to a legal threshold that it found difficult to meet. Consequently, because of these challenges, EPA has limited or banned only five chemicals or chemical classes since 1976. [ Jacques Arsenault: ] Now turning to this report, your team looked at the approaches of some other countries or organizations. Can you talk about what you looked at and what you found? [ Alfredo Gomez: ] We looked at two countries, so we looked at Canada and Australia's chemicals management programs, and we also looked at two entities within the World Health Organization. And what we found is that these entities use similar analytic approaches. They also use published literature to inform their work. Both Canada and Australia's programs have conducted thousands of screening assessments, and what we mean by that is that these are assessments that go to varying levels of depth depending on what officials determine is needed to understand the risks. [ Jacques Arsenault: ] So can you tell me, for example, how Canada manages chemicals? [ Alfredo Gomez: ] Canada does a couple of things. So they can set regulations that limit the concentrations of a chemical that can be used in a product, or released into the environment. They can also require industry to report to the government when a chemical is used for a new activity. And they can also use—issue codes of practice to give industry direction on how to reduce emissions. [ Jacques Arsenault: ] What are some of the reasons for the differences in how these countries manage chemicals? [ Alfredo Gomez: ] So the differences at least in part are due to differences in philosophy or legal standards. So, for example, in the U.S. the EPA has limited or banned only five chemicals or chemical classes since 1976. And this is due to a legal threshold that the agency has found difficult to meet. Other countries follow the precautionary principle, so what I mean by that is that the level of information that's needed to support a ban or limit a chemical is less intensive. [ Jacques Arsenault: ] And finally, what would you say is the bottom line of this report? [ Alfredo Gomez: ] So the bottom line of this report is that different countries and organizations approach toxic chemical assessments in different ways, and it depends on the laws that they have in place. We found that both Canada and Australia have issued or done thousands of assessments, and as Congress continues to debate the nation's toxic chemical safety laws these international approaches may offer different perspectives. [ Background Music ] [ Narrator: ] To learn more, visit GAO.gov and be sure to tune in to the next episode of GAO's Watchdog Report for more from the congressional watchdog, the U.S. Government Accountability Office.