Science should guide TSCA reform.

T Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 tasks the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with managing chemical safety in the United States. TSCA works by a system of premanufacture notifications (PMNs), which are submitted to the EPA by industry when a company wants to market a new chemical or an old one for a new use. The notification to the EPA includes information on the chemical’s composition and intended use. However, one of the major shortcomings of TSCA is the lack of health testing of new chemicals. If a company has any toxicity data, they are required to submit the data with the PMN, but there are no requirements to collect health data prior to PMN submission. After reviewing the PMN, the EPA then responds with permission to produce or market the chemical, a request for additional data, or with a denial. Certain substances are generally excluded from TSCA, such as foods, drugs, cosmetics, and pesticides. TSCA has not been as effective as originally hoped; in fact, some refer to it as the Toxic Substances Conversation Act in tribute to its slow pace. Reform is needed. Much has changed since 1976. PCBs, DDT, mirex, and endosulfan are no longer on the market; the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) has come into force; and the European Union has passed sweeping legislation focused on chemical safety called Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). TSCA reform is underway. Stakeholders in this effort include governmental, industrial, and nongovernmental organizations and academic scientists. While many scientists typically avoid the political process, we maintain that the scientific community has valuable expertise and must be at the table as TSCA is rewritten. With scientific input, the U.S. can learn from past mistakes and benefit from decades of research on chemicals' environmental fates and effects. What are the key elements to a reformed TSCA?