Policy Watch: EPA safer chemicals program gets bipartisan Senate boost

Senate bill would codify EPA’s Safer Choice program

A bipartisan bill introduced in the US Senate by Sens. Chris Coons (D-DE) and Jon Husted (R-OH) on June 3 would put the Environmental Protection Agency’s Safer Choice program on firmer legal footing than its current format.

“This legislation provides long-term certainty for manufacturers so they can invest in safer chemistry, and so Americans can continue to lead in innovation,” Coons, who cochairs the Senate Chemistry Caucus, says in a press release.

In addition to codifying the Safer Choice program, the bill would “maintain rigorous, science-based standards for participating products” and “strengthen protections against conflicts of interest in product reviews,” among other provisions, the press release notes.

The program supports the use of environmentally benign chemicals in consumer products through a voluntary ecolabel and certification process administered by the EPA.

Safer Choice and the associated Design for the Environment program for disinfectants and sanitizers are popular with the public, consumer product makers, and chemical companies—especially for household cleaning and care. But the programs don’t have a specific basis in federal legislation and have come under threat from the Donald J. Trump administration.

The move to codify the program has already drawn strong support from businesses, industry groups (PDF), and nonprofits.

Codifying it would “provide durability and certainty for companies investing in reformulation, product development, and supply chain changes aligned with the Safer Choice Standard,” the American Cleaning Institute, BASF, the Household & Commercial Products Association, and 100 other signees write in a May 22 letter to members of Congress.

—Craig Bettenhausen

Trump endorses shake-up of US childhood vaccine schedule

President Donald J. Trump issued an executive order May 29 directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to review a January report from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and “take any appropriate steps” to update the childhood and adolescent vaccine schedule—despite a court order currently preventing any such action.

The HHS report compares the US childhood vaccination schedule, which recommends vaccines against 17 diseases for all children between birth and age 17, with those of other developed nations, which include between 10 and 16 diseases.

The report advises the CDC to reclassify six vaccines on the schedule—including those for hepatitis A and B, as well as meningococcal meningitis—as being recommended under “shared clinical decision-making” or for certain high-risk groups or populations. Shared clinical decision-making involves a discussion between health-care providers and patients or their caregivers to guide health decisions based on individual characteristics.

Then-acting CDC director Jim O’Neill signed a memorandum on Jan. 5 saying the agency would approve the recommendations. But in March, a federal judge issued an injunction against the changes, as well as against HHS secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s complete overhaul of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which issues vaccine recommendations.

The executive order says the HHS report is “acknowledged as a guiding resource for the Federal Government.” The White House did not respond to a request for comment, and it’s not clear what weight the order carries in light of the court decision.

In a written statement, Jan Carney, president of the American College of Physicians (ACP), says that the ACP is “deeply concerned” by the executive order. She adds that it is the “second time the administration has attempted to unilaterally substitute vaccine guidance from other countries to replace the U.S. vaccine schedule which was developed for the specific needs of the U.S. population.”

“The changes that this executive order directs cannot be allowed to move forward,” Carney says.

—Yaakov Zinberg, special to C&EN

California Senate backs slimmed-down research bond, now at $12 billion

The California Senate on May 27 passed a bill that would create a $12 billion bond to fund scientific research across the state, which the bill’s authors hope will shield universities from the unpredictability created by the Donald J. Trump administration’s disruptions to federal funding.

“In the face of MAGA’s senseless destruction of our federal science agencies and cuts to scientific research, California must stand up and defend the research that powers our state,” says State Senator Scott Wiener (D), one of the bill’s authors, in a press release.

The California Science and Health Research Bond Act originally proposed to establish a $23 billion bond, but that amount was amended during a May 14 hearing of the appropriations committee.

In addition to raising money through general obligation bonds, the act would create a foundation tasked with overseeing funding decisions. Grants would be distributed according to foundation priorities and an expert-led peer review panel.

The bill passed the state Senate in a 29–9 vote. But before it can become law, it will need to pass in the State Assembly, receive Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) signature, and secure voter approval as a ballot measure in the state’s next general election.

In a May 4 press release, the University of California—one of the bill’s sponsors—says that the bill would “help fund modernization of research facilities, expansion of laboratory and clinical capacity, and improvements to public health infrastructure.”

—Krystal Vasquez

California Assembly advances bill targeting PFAS pesticides

The California Assembly on May 27 approved in a 42–21 vote a bill that would restrict future registrations of pesticides containing PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) and tighten controls on certain agricultural uses, sending the bill to the Senate.

If the bill is enacted, California would join a small but growing group of states, including Maine and Minnesota, that have adopted pesticide-specific PFAS restrictions.

AB 1603 targets PFAS, a class of persistent synthetic compounds often referred to as “forever chemicals” that supporters say contribute to environmental contamination in part through pesticide use.

Environmental groups backing the measure argue that California should move faster than federal regulators to limit PFAS releases, while opponents contend that the proposal would circumvent existing pesticide review systems, reduce access to crop protection tools, and place California farmers at a competitive disadvantage.

Renee Pinel, president and CEO of the Western Plant Health Association, tells C&EN that the measure would override the state Department of Pesticide Regulation’s scientific review process and restrict future pesticide technologies, leaving California growers with fewer pest management options and higher costs. “It will not allow new products and technologies by 2027, which could be catastrophic to California agriculture,” Pinel says.

A spokesperson for CropLife America, another industry trade group, echoes those concerns, saying that the bill “would ban 54 active ingredients and more than 1,100 products by adopting an overly broad definition that the EPA explicitly rejected in 2023.” The spokesperson also cites disruptions to California agriculture and says the bill threatens to “drive up grocery costs for California families.”

But the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a cosponsor of the bill, points to its recent analysis showing widespread PFAS detections in California surface waters and sediments and argues that pesticides are a preventable source of contamination. The EWG says the bill would help curb ongoing releases of PFAS into the environment and accelerate a transition away from fluorinated pesticide chemistries.

The bill narrowed substantially during the legislative process. Earlier versions proposed broader phaseouts and warning label requirements for PFAS-containing pesticides. But the version that passed in the Assembly focuses on limiting future new registrations and targets agricultural uses.

—Joe Beeton, special to C&EN

SEC moves to undo its corporate climate reporting rule

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on May 29 proposed to rescind its 2024 climate disclosure rule, which would have required publicly traded companies to disclose greenhouse gas emissions and other climate-related risks to investors.

The rule was supported by Gary Gensler, chair of the SEC during the Joe Biden administration, to give investors a fuller picture of a company’s financial condition. But critics, including the Donald J. Trump administration SEC, say the rule is outside the agency’s authority.

“The federal securities laws are not general business conduct laws and were never intended to be an amorphous tool to elicit environmental and social policy changes,” SEC commissioner Mark Uyeda says in a statement. The purpose of investments is to make money, not to act as charity, he says.

The US Chamber of Commerce welcomes the SEC’s actions. The “rule would have far-reaching negative effects on the U.S. economy and further disincentivize companies from going public in the United States,” Mike Flood, senior vice president of the chamber’s Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness, says in a statement.

But Tom Zimpleman, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, says, “this reversal would mean investors are left in the dark about the material risks companies face from climate change.”

The rule was set to go into effect in March of this year but was put on hold in April 2024 after multiple groups filed lawsuits against the SEC, including environmental advocacy groups, fracking companies, and state attorneys general. In March 2025, the SEC voted to stop defending the rule in court.

The SEC is soliciting public comments on the proposal until Aug. 3.

—Leigh Krietsch Boerner