chlorphenoxy
The road to fossil fuel dependence.
The U.S. interstate highway system was designed to keep America safe in case of invasion, but it had dramatic consequences for the way we live today.
The U.S. interstate highway system was designed to keep America safe in case of invasion, but it had dramatic consequences for the way we live today.
01.30.2017 / BY McKay Jenkins
JOIN THE DISCUSSION SHARE
AFRIEND OF MINE recently said that he found it easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism.
I thought about this idea a great deal as I was doing research for my book “Food Fight: GMOs and the Future of the American Diet.” The deeper I looked, the more it became clear that many of the serious environmental problems the world currently faces — climate change, soil depletion, chemical pollution, species loss — are intractable not because of a failure of human intelligence but because of a failure of human imagination.
WHAT I LEFT OUT is a recurring feature in which book authors are invited to share anecdotes and narratives that, for whatever reason, did not make it into their final manuscripts. In this installment, author McKay Jenkins shares a story that didn’t make it into his latest book “Food Fight: GMOs and the Future of the American Diet.”
Or perhaps, more precisely, a failure of memory.
Remember: our current precipitous ecological decline only began accelerating about 75 years ago, a change driven by World War II. As much as the war tore holes in the heart of Europe and Asia, it also, in its aftermath, hit the rest of the world like a meteor. In the years after the war, the United States decided that the best way to defend itself against future invasion was to build a monumental interstate highway system. This network of wide, highly engineered superhighways — modeled after the German Autobahn and named for President Dwight Eisenhower — would allow the free deployment of armored vehicles from Maine to Florida, from Washington to San Diego, and everywhere in between.
So far so good. The U.S. has not recently been invaded by land. But in a dramatic example of unintended consequences, the interstate highway system, designed to keep the U.S. safe, has been a root cause of dramatic global political and environmental instability. The interstates — all 47,000 miles of them — have not just been used for troop transport, of course. As larger and larger roadways were constructed, they not only connected major cities, but led to an endless series of concentric ring roads around cities. This allowed more and more Americans to move out into the seemingly infinite number of housing developments built in the suburbs.
Again, so far so good. This was the American Dream: the big house in the suburbs; the two-car garage; the home full of flat screen televisions; the whole bit. And the cost?
Most obviously, all these roads, and all these cars, made the U.S. a country of commuters, utterly dependent on fossil fuels to drive their vehicles, and to heat and cool their big houses. But fossil fuels were also turned into everything from cosmetics and wall-to-wall carpeting to baby pajamas and plastic water bottles — all the innumerable consumer products we now can’t imagine giving up.
It has become a cliché to remark that Americans make up less than 5 percent of the world’s population yet consume 25 percent of the world’s energy. This is where that number was born. The myriad problems associated with our dependence on fossil fuels (warfare in oil-producing countries; climate change; rising sea levels, ocean acidification, species loss) can all, in large measure, be traced to the explosion of growth that sprouted along the American interstate highway system.
There’s more. All those suburban roadways and housing developments also gave rise to a colossal shift in land use known as the Great American Lawn. There are now some 63,000 square miles of turf grass in the U.S., and lawn care has become something of a national obsession.
So far so good. But lawns require the cutting of forests, the removal of native plants, and for many people extensive use of lawn chemicals. One such chemical is 2,4-D, a popular herbicide you can find in any hardware store. 2,4-D, in case you haven’t heard of it, was a primary constituent of Agent Orange, the defoliant used in Vietnam that left a terrible legacy of illness among American soldiers and Vietnamese civilians alike. While most of the issues associated with Agent Orange are linked to its other herbicide component, 2,4-D is itself considered a possible human carcinogen.
Cornell’s David Pimentel has estimated that 72 million birds die each year from exposure to pesticides, a number that does not include those that die because a parent was killed by pesticides, or birds killed by eating contaminated insects or worms. The number may be closer to 150 million. All told, nearly a third of the country’s 800 bird species are endangered, threatened, or in serious decline.
But it even goes beyond this. All those roads, and all those suburbs, had to be built on top of something, and they were: They were built on top of farms. Since the end of the war, the U.S. has lost four million small farms. A hundred and fifty years ago, more than 64 percent of Americans worked on a farm. Now, the number is 2 percent. Replacing local food production has been a globalized food network — built on roads, and shipping lanes, and air routes — radiating out from the industrial farms in the American Midwest. There are currently some 230 million acres of monoculture corn, wheat, and soybeans in the U.S. (and millions more being developed in deforested land in South America) all of which are used to provide the high-calorie, processed meals that Americans have come to demand. Americans spent $117 billion on fast food in 2014; virtually all of it is constructed, one way or another out of GMO corn, soybeans and canola oil. We drink, on average, 45 gallons of soda per person, per year, virtually all of it sweetened with GMO corn. We eat some 9 billion animals a year, almost all of which are raised in factory farms and fed GMO corn and soybeans. Ninety percent of American kids visit a McDonald’s once a month month. By 2019, the global agrochemicals industry is estimated to be worth $261 billion.
The costs of this shift in the way we eat have been as broad and dramatic as the costs of our dependence on fossil fuels. For starters, Americans eat a far less diverse diet than we did before the war: in the 20th century, the varieties of fruits and vegetables sold by commercial American seed houses dropped 97 percent. All those millions of acres of corn and wheat and soybeans have also led to a tremendous increase in the use of agricultural chemicals and the genetically engineered crops designed to withstand this chemical onslaught. Even the most “benign” of these chemicals, like Monsanto’s Roundup, are known to cause human and environmental damage. The cancer research arm of the World Health Organization recently declared Roundup’s primary ingredient glyphosate, to be a “probable human carcinogen.” Between 1996 and 2011, the use of glyphosate on American food crops grew by 527 million pounds.
So the question remains: Is it possible to imagine, or to remember, a time when we didn’t need all of this? All of these lawn chemicals and plastic bottles and monoculture food crops that do little more than make corn chips and fast food burgers?
In recent years, I’ve gotten involved with a group of scholars and scientists at The Land Institute, a renowned agricultural research station in Salina, Kansas, where — led by the MacArthur ‘genius grant’ winner Wes Jackson — we are trying to construct a new academic discipline called “Ecospheric Studies.” The idea is to try and undo 10,0000 years of agriculture, 500 years of higher education, and 75 years of dependence on fossil fuels. Rather than viewing the world as a Newtonian/Cartesian “machine” that can be manipulated to efficiently provide material benefits only to human societies, the idea is to try to reorganize human desires — everything from the way we shop to the way we eat — to fit within the natural systems from which all things emerge. Plant scientists at The Land Institute, for example, are developing “perennial polyculture” crops that are modeled on prairie ecosystems — growing food without destroying soil or water; without needing excessive herbicides or fossil fuel fertilizers; and without depending on global conglomerates for GMO seeds.
This “ecospheric” view — taking cues from ecology, but also from indigenous cultures the world over — seeks to consider the natural world itself as a model for human behavior. Critically, it seeks to introduce a sense of humility into the human project — and especially in fields like agricultural science and environmental engineering — to encourage embracing a sense of limits on what we can take from the world, and even on what it is possible to know about the world. There are ways of being — more benign, humble, perhaps spiritually aware — that are radically different from the competitive, extractive, and aggressive ways we’ve chosen to live for the past half-century. The question is, can we imagine it? Can we even remember it?
Keep reading...Show less
For US science policy, big shift ahead.
Here’s how Congress and Trump could affect the chemistry enterprise.
Here’s how Congress and Trump could affect the chemistry enterprise
By Government & Policy Department
Credit: Mike Segar/Reuters/Newscom
A new, Republican-controlled Congress is planning to curb regulation and cut at least parts of the U.S. budget. Incoming President Donald Trump, who so far has made no strong connections to the science community, is out to make fundamental changes to the federal government. How their actions will ultimately reverberate through the chemistry enterprise is not yet clear. But leaders in Washington could affect U.S. chemists through shifts in trade policy, research funding, and regulation of drugs, pesticides, commercial chemicals, and more.
Jump to Topics:
- Research funding: Uncertainty surrounds federal budget
- Chemical regulation: TSCA implementation a priority
- Nuclear power: Waste could finally find a home
- Energy: Unclear path, tumultuous time for energy policy
- Climate Change: U.S. future in Paris Agreement uncertain
- Pesticides: EPA to decide on several crop protection products
- Trade: Trump signals major shift in import-export policy
- Environment: Scrutiny of EPA’s scientific review process will continue
- Policy outlook roundup
↑ Top
Research funding: Uncertainty surrounds federal budget
The election of Trump last fall was a shock for the science community. Now, it is grappling with more uncertainty than it has faced in years over science policy and the future of research funding.
“There is a new cast of characters and certainly not the traditionally strong ties to the scientific community,” says Howard Garrison, director for policy at the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, which represents 30 societies. “We are just going to have to wait and see.”
“If the size of the sandbox is shrinking, that is going to bring science with it.”
—Matthew Hourihan, Director of the R&D; Budget & Policy Program, American Association for the Advancement of Science.
That doesn’t mean there won’t be support for research. In the past, Republicans have been advocates for funding basic science, which they see as an important role of the federal government. This played out most recently in the 21st Century Cures Act, a law pushing for medical innovations, which passed in December with bipartisan support.
But many Republicans also present themselves as budget hawks who want to slash the federal deficit. That means they could push for overall cuts to the discretionary budget, which includes almost all science funding. They might also want to enforce sequestration, which passed in 2011 and mandated budget cuts that never fully went into effect but still resulted in the lowest grant funding rates in years for research agencies.
“If the size of the sandbox is shrinking, that is going to bring science with it,” says Matthew Hourihan, director of the R&D; Budget & Policy Program at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Science in controversial areas such as climate change or social science might be most at risk of cuts, he adds.
The nomination of Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) as director of the White House Office of Management & Budget could indicate cuts are on the horizon. OMB coordinates fiscal policy and the President’s proposed budget.
“We know that Rep. Mulvaney has spoken positively about sequestration, and he’s certainly a fiscal hawk,” Hourihan says. Mulvaney also questioned the government’s role in research funding during a congressional debate over Zika funding last year.
That means that supporters of science research will likely turn to the Congress to bolster science support. With dozens of new members of Congress and new chairs of important committees, “the general consensus is that we need to completely rebuild. And that’s okay,” explains Anthony Pitagno, director of advocacy at the American Chemical Society, which publishes C&EN.;
The changes also might force research advocates to go beyond the traditional science-oriented committees to lobby those that have broader control over spending, especially the House and Senate budget committees. “This gives us an opportunity to reframe our issues,” he says. “We have to work channels that we haven’t for the last couple of years.
Garrison advocates for science groups maintaining a low profile while Trump and Congress work on fulfilling some of their campaign promises such as reforming Obamacare or immigration reform.
“Let’s wait until the dust settles and then build bridges to the new Administration,” he says.—Andrea Widener
↑ Top
Chemical regulation: TSCA implementation a priority
2017 TSCA milestones
EPA is expected to meet several deadlines this year mandated under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act
▸ May: Publish scope of first 10 high-priority chemical risk evaluations
▸ June: Develop process for determining whether chemicals are low or high priority for risk evaluation
▸ June: Develop risk evaluation process
▸ June: Require manufacturers to provide information to EPA on chemicals they made or used within the last decade
Determining how to review the potential risks of commercial chemicals is at the top of the Environmental Protection Agency’s agenda this year. EPA faces several deadlines related to implementation of the new Toxic Substances Control Act, which was enacted in June 2016. Over the next several years, the agency must evaluate the potential risks of chemicals in household items and industrial products sold in the U.S., starting with 10 high-priority substances. The new law gives EPA authority to request safety data for such chemicals, as well as to collect fees from industry to conduct evaluations.
EPA has already identified the first 10 high-priority chemicals for evaluation. By May, the agency must describe the scope of those evaluations. By June, EPA must have a risk evaluation process in place and a method to identify whether chemicals are low or high priority for evaluation. Also by June, EPA must require manufacturers to provide the agency with information on chemicals they made or used within the last 10 years.
The chemical industry and environmental groups are heavily engaged in discussions with the agency about new policies under TSCA. Early policies and interpretations of some provisions of the new law, particularly those related to EPA’s evaluation of new chemicals, have sparked debate.
The chemical industry claims that the agency’s interpretation of the law is slowing down the review of new chemicals and delaying their entry into the U.S. market. Public health and environmental activists are urging EPA to continue thoroughly reviewing the risks of all new chemicals.
At the very least, EPA under incoming President Trump will reconsider how it evaluates new chemicals, representatives from the chemical industry predict. It is less clear how the Trump Administration will handle pending TSCA rules developed by the Obama Administration, including proposals to ban the use of methylene chloride and N-methylpyrrolidone in paint strippers. Proposed rules restricting the use of trichloroethylene in aerosol spray degreasers, vapor degreasing agents, and dry cleaning spotting agents are also up in the air.—Britt Erickson
↑ Top
Nuclear power: Waste could finally find a home
The Department of Energy bored more than five miles of exploratory tunnels into Yucca Mountain.
Credit: Department Of Energy
Though completion of nuclear waste repository Yucca Mountain stalled in recent years, an effort to identify volunteer host sites for interim storage of nuclear waste gained traction last year and many expect it to gain momentum in 2017.
The Department of Energy last January kicked-off its community engagement program to identify U.S. sites willing to take on interim storage and permanent disposal of nuclear waste. A final report from DOE released in December 2016 outlined the initiative’s process and progress and summarized public comments.
According to the report, approximately 75,000 metric tons of used fuel from commercial nuclear reactors by the end of 2015 was being stored on-site at nuclear power plants throughout the U.S. An additional 2,000 metric tons is generated each year. Defense activities have produced more than 300 million liters of liquid, sludge, and solid high-level radioactive waste, DOE says.
Calls to solve the decades-old U.S. nuclear waste problem have come from outside and inside the halls of Congress.
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who leads the Senate appropriations subcommittee on energy, has called on his congressional colleagues to invest in energy research and find a path forward for nuclear waste management.
“We need to move on all tracks at the same time to solve the nuclear waste stalemate,” Alexander says. In the coming year, he adds, Congress should pass the proposed Nuclear Waste Administration Act, greenlight a pilot program for consolidated nuclear waste storage, and approve funds for private interim storage.
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a lobbying organization for the nuclear industry, outlined its priorities last month in a memorandum to Trump and his transition team. The group, which has been a proponent of moving the nation’s used fuel to Yucca Mountain, said DOE should complete the licensing process for the site.
“The 114th Congress saw numerous legislative initiatives aimed at addressing our nation’s used fuel management strategy. The nuclear industry anticipates that interest will grow in the 115th Congress,” says Maria Korsnick, NEI’s CEO.—Jessica Morrison
↑ Top
Energy: Unclear path, tumultuous time for energy policy
Credit: Shutterstock
In the early weeks of the new Congress, Republican majorities in the House of Representatives and Senate are expected to develop plans to roll back energy- and environment-related programs and regulations. The exact hows and whats, however, are unclear.
Meanwhile, several aides say lawmakers will likely attempt to resurrect past bills cleared by the House in the last session of Congress but blocked in the Senate or by President Barack Obama. For instance, the House Energy & Commerce Committee is likely to revisit provisions in the proposed North American Security & Infrastructure Act, which cleared the House along party lines but did not pass the Senate. The measure’s provisions addressed electrical grid security, energy efficiency, and other areas.
Such bills are likely to be modified, reflecting the GOP’s new authority through the incoming Trump presidency as well as control of both bodies of Congress, aides say. Lawmakers are exploring legislative approaches that would spur energy-related infrastructure development.
On the Senate side, movement will be slower. The Senate Energy & Natural Resources committee will take up more than 40 of Trump’s nominees for key Energy and Interior Department posts. That will draw about three months of committee time, according to Senate aides.
Longtime supporters of energy R&D; funding and the jobs that have come with it are worried and looking for ways to protect and support the Department of Energy’s science and technology research programs.
“My hunch is the new Congress is going to be deeply involved in regulatory and nomination battles early on,” says Robert Cowin, Union of Concerned Scientists’ government affairs director. “But right now, we are watching congressional budget conversations from a clean energy standpoint. Particularly, we are looking at funding for programs such as energy efficiency, Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), and grid modernization. On the basis of Trump’s transition team statements, these programs appear to have targets on their backs.
“But they are important and create jobs and we want to see them continue to be funded.”
Cowin notes the new Administration has promised to push tax reform. “There may be opportunities in tax code reform proposals to provide support for technology neutral, low-carbon projects.”—Jeff Johnson, special to C&EN;
↑ Top
Climate Change: U.S. future in Paris Agreement uncertain
Trump’s position on the Paris Agreement to stem climate change isn’t yet clear. During the 2016 campaign, he pledged to “cancel” the Paris Agreement. After he was elected, Trump told the New York Times that he has “an open mind” about the climate deal.
The 2015 international agreement, ratified by 122 countries and the European Union, calls for each country’s greenhouse gas emissions to be capped at levels sufficient to keep global temperature rise below 2 °C, a goal set by policymakers. Some scientists say this level is likely to be sufficient to avoid the worst effects of global warming.
“Trump could formally pull the U.S. out over the next three years under the terms of the agreement,” says David Waskow, director of the international climate initiative of the World Resources Institute, an environmental nonprofit. The impact would be “significant” with worldwide repercussions, he says.
“Climate change has moved to the core of international agreements and diplomacy,” he says. “Retreating from Paris will send negative signals internationally, frankly, in other areas as well as climate. And it will make it very difficult for the U.S. to play a leadership role in the huge and emerging international marketplace for clean energy products,” Wasko says.
He pointed to China’s recent announcement that it will invest more than $360 billion over the next four years to speed up its use of renewable energy.
Environmental activists are gearing up to defend the Clean Power Plan, an Obama Administration regulation designed as the main means for the U.S. to implement the Paris Agreement. A group of states is contesting that rule in federal court—an effort that until recently was led by Trump’s pick to captain EPA, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt.
Congress, too, may consider legislation to revoke that EPA rule, given that Republican lawmakers attempted to do so in 2015.—Jeff Johnson, special to C&EN;
↑ Top
Pesticides: EPA to decide on several crop protection products
Chlorpyrifos
EPA is under a court order to make a final decision about the organophosphate insecticide chlorpyrifos by March 31. In response to a petition from environmental groups, the agency twice last year proposed to revoke all food tolerances for the chemical. Industry and farm groups say it is unlikely that the Trump Administration will support the proposed action because of the importance of the chemical to crop protection, but it is unclear how EPA would justify reversing course. The assessments underlying the agency’s proposal are controversial because EPA used human epidemiological data in some of its determinations. The chemical industry is challenging those assessments.
Atrazine
EPA plans to have its pesticide Scientific Advisory Panel of outside experts review the agency’s draft ecological assessment of the herbicide atrazine this year. EPA released the draft assessment in 2016, concluding that atrazine poses a health risk to many plants and animals. Farm groups and pesticide makers are urging the agency not to tighten restrictions on atrazine, saying it would render the chemical useless in controlling weeds. EPA is also expected to release its human health assessments for three triazine herbicides, including atrazine, later this year.
Glyphosate and 2,4-D
EPA is expected to finalize a proposal early this year that would allow the herbicide Enlist Duo—a combination of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and glyphosate—to be used on genetically engineered cotton. The proposal would also expand the number of states where the controversial mixture can be used. Enlist Duo, manufactured by Dow AgroSciences, is already approved for use on genetically engineered corn and soybeans in more than a dozen U.S. states. Wine growers in Texas are raising concerns about expanding the use of Enlist Duo, saying volatile herbicides such as 2,4-D are drifting into their vineyards from nearby cropland and damaging their fruit.—Britt Erickson
↑ Top
Trade: Trump signals major shift in import-export policy
Trump is promising to usher in a new era for trade policy that could signal trouble ahead for U.S. chemical manufacturers.
Last August during the campaign, Trump said he would shift the focus from expansive multilateral trade agreements to renegotiation or withdrawal from existing pacts that he contends have failed to protect U.S. manufacturing jobs.
“We will negotiate fair, bilateral trade deals that bring jobs and industry back onto American shores.”
—Donald Trump
As one of the nation’s top exporting industries, the chemical sector has been a strong proponent of the 14 free trade agreements the U.S. has entered into with 20 countries.
“We would like to see a continuance of trade policies that will create new opportunities and address barriers that impede the ability of U.S. specialty chemical manufacturers from growing their businesses,” says Brittany Mountjoy, manager of government relations at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates, an industry trade group.
SOCMA’s member companies—mainly small and mid-sized businesses—are “hopeful about the new Administration,” and the benefits it might bring to specialty chemical makers, Mountjoy says.
Trump, who has long disdained international trade deals that he says make it easier to offshore U.S. jobs, has promised to immediately ditch the Trans Pacific Partnership. He has described the pending free trade agreement signed by 12 countries around the Pacific Rim, including the U.S., Japan, and Australia, as a job-killing “potential disaster for our country.”
“Instead, we will negotiate fair, bilateral trade deals that bring jobs and industry back onto American shores,” Trump said in a late November 2016 video announcing his transition plans.
Last June, he threatened to withdraw the U.S. from the North American Free Trade Agreement, which connects Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, if Mexico doesn’t agree to renegotiate the pact. The 22-year-old agreement, Trump argues, has hollowed out U.S. manufacturing to Mexico’s benefit.
With vast supplies of low-cost natural gas from shale deposits and $175 billion invested in new factories and expanded production capacity, U.S. chemical exports are projected to grow on average 7% per year through 2021, according to the American Chemistry Council, an industry association. But meeting that potential will require new trade agreements, it claims.
“We agree that trade should be fair, and also know firsthand that trade can unlock potential in our economy and create jobs here at home,” ACC says. “We hope to work with Congress and the Trump Administration to chart a path forward on trade that will help American businesses thrive and benefit American workers.”—Glenn Hess, special to C&EN;
↑ Top
Environment: Scrutiny of EPA’s scientific review process will continue
Congressional scrutiny of the Environmental Protection Agency’s scientific review process could signal changes for the agency this year.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chair of the House Science, Space & Technology Committee, last month challenged the scientific validity of the Environmental Protection Agency’s multiyear hydraulic fracturing study. Smith accused EPA of changing its mind on the impact of hydraulic fracturing on water supplies.
“It is clear that the agency needs to enact reforms of its entire scientific review process,” Smith said in a statement after the release of EPA’s hydraulic fracturing study. “I look forward to working with the next Administration to enact critical reforms to put EPA back on course in pursuing transparency and sound science.”
Smith cosponsored legislation in the 114th Congress aimed at changing the way EPA selects external experts. The House passed the proposed EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015 (H.R. 1029), but a companion bill introduced in the Senate failed to gain traction.
The legislation, which could re-surface, would have set new requirements for membership selection to EPA’s expert advisory committees and panels.
The 2015 bill would have opened the door to more EPA advisers from industry.
It also would have prohibited scientists who have received EPA grants within three years from serving, restricted experts from participating in advisory evaluations related to their own research, and required the board to provide written responses to “significant comments” from the public.—Jessica Morrison
↑ Top
Policy outlook roundup
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Speaker of the House of Representatives, determines which legislation will come before lawmakers for a vote.
Credit: Associated Press
Business: Administration could seek to stop chemical makers’ mergers
The Trump transition’s agriculture adviser, Bruce Rastetter, wants the incoming Administration to halt pending mergers of major chemical and seed companies. These include deals between Dow and DuPont, Bayer and Monsanto, and China National Chemical and Syngenta. Rastetter, CEO of Summit Agricultural Group, told theDes Moines Register the mergers would jack up farmers’ costs because they would amalgamate seed suppliers and agrochemical producers.—Cheryl Hogue
Diversity: Immigration reform efforts could impact scientists
Immigration reform was a cornerstone of President-elect Trump’s campaign platform, with Trump saying he wanted to limit the number of foreign workers who came into the U.S. Scientists are most worried about crackdowns on the H-1B, the visa for highly skilled workers. Trump has attacked the H-1B visa the past.—Andrea Widener
Consumer products: Momentum to boost cosmetics oversight grows
Credit: Shutterstock
Cosmetics and personal care products manufacturers, health groups, and others are urging U.S. lawmakers to reintroduce the Personal Care Products Safety Act this year. The legislation would boost FDA’s oversight of cosmetics ingredients and require cosmetics companies to register with the agency.—Britt Erickson
Drug development: FDA to implement 21st Century Cures law
FDA is gearing up to approve pharmaceuticals more quickly through a new law enacted in December. Though opponents question the safety of accelerated approval, outgoing FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf says the law will support agency “efforts to modernize and improve efficiency in clinical trial design.” The Trump transition team has made no announcement about FDA work on the 21st Century Cures law as yet.—Jessica Morrison
Education: Higher education legislation may gain momentum in 2017
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) has been working on a revamp of the Higher Education Act for several years, so he will likely push it in 2017. The parts of the bill that focus on science teacher training, access for disadvantaged students, and reducing administrative burdens for universities are all of interest to the science community.—Andrea Widener
Persistent Pollutants: Industry continues to seek U.S. ratification of treaty
Chemical manufacturers are asking Congress to make the U.S. an official treaty partner to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Under that agreement, countries are reducing or eliminating the release of substances that can cause serious health problems. Among chemicals it covers are several obsolete pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls. The American Chemistry Council, an industry group, supports the U.S. becoming a full participant in the 2001 accord, a move that environmental activists back too. “As we work to highlight issues that are important to U.S. manufacturers and American competitiveness, ACC will continue to include ratification of the Stockholm Convention,” the group says.—Cheryl Hogue
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
