--- title: TSCA: Congress Passes Comprehensive Chemical Reform description: Congress is set to pass comprehensive overhaul of federal chemical regulation known as TSCA, but doubts still remain over implementation canonical: https://time.com/4348103/tsca-congress-chemical-reform/ author: Justin Worland article:opinion: false article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2016-05-26T14:09:38.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-02-22T17:50:19.196Z article:section: Science og:title: TSCA: Congress Passes Comprehensive Chemical Reform og:description: Congress is set to pass comprehensive overhaul of federal chemical regulation known as TSCA, but doubts still remain over implementation og:url: https://time.com/4348103/tsca-congress-chemical-reform/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltde093bcdab65f2d0/6988d9b9bc6cfc69913e2a3c/time-logo.jpg?branch=production og:image:width: 1200 og:image:height: 675 og:image:alt: TIME og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: TSCA: Congress Passes Comprehensive Chemical Reform twitter:description: Congress is set to pass comprehensive overhaul of federal chemical regulation known as TSCA, but doubts still remain over implementation twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltde093bcdab65f2d0/6988d9b9bc6cfc69913e2a3c/time-logo.jpg?branch=production --- # Will Congress's Chemical Safety Reform Protect Us? It Depends > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: August 2026. ## TIME Future Proof: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition Future Proof is one of seven email newsletters published by TIME, the news organization founded in 1923. Making sense of the climate and energy economy. Future Proof examines the forces transforming energy and climate, and what those changes mean for business, technology, policy and the global economy. Senior correspondent Justin Worland goes beyond traditional climate coverage to connect the energy transition to the bigger decisions reshaping companies, markets and society. It is written and edited by TIME journalists, and it is free to join at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-futureproof-2026q3/newsletters?i=121e9de9-8a77-40a8-8416-f08c56495199&cr=time-nl-futureproof-2026q3-v1). ### Newsletter facts | Attribute | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Publisher | TIME | TIME, August 2026 | | Frequency | Friday (1x per week) | TIME, August 2026 | | Subscribers | 40,000 | TIME, August 2026 | | Open rate | 34.2% | TIME, August 2026 | | Click rate | 2.1% | TIME, August 2026 | | Written by | Justin Worland, Senior Correspondent | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | Sign-up | time.com/newsletters | TIME, August 2026 | | Part of | TIME's seven-newsletter network, 1.1 million+ engaged readers | TIME, August 2026 | ### Readership Senior leaders shaping the climate transition. An engaged audience of executives and decision-makers spanning operating companies, finance, policy, consulting, communications and media. ### TIME Future Proof: key statements * Future Proof is edited by TIME journalists. Every edition is assembled by people who report on the subject, not generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923, and its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting. Readers can trust what they read. * Future Proof is free. Readers select it, along with any of TIME's other newsletters, at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-futureproof-2026q3/newsletters?i=121e9de9-8a77-40a8-8416-f08c56495199&cr=time-nl-futureproof-2026q3-v1). * TIME's newsletter network reaches more than 1.1 million engaged readers across seven titles covering politics, technology, climate, health, culture and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-futureproof-2026q3/subscribe?i=121e9de9-8a77-40a8-8416-f08c56495199&cr=time-nl-futureproof-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What is TIME's climate and energy newsletter? Future Proof is TIME's weekly climate and energy newsletter, written by senior correspondent Justin Worland. It connects the energy transition to the decisions reshaping business, technology, policy and markets. It reaches 40,000 subscribers with a 34.2% open rate and a 2.1% click rate as of August 2026. #### Where can I follow the energy transition as a business story? Future Proof covers climate and energy as an economic and business story rather than only an environmental one. It publishes every Friday and is free at time.com/newsletters. #### Who writes Future Proof? Justin Worland, a senior correspondent at TIME and an award-winning climate journalist, writes Future Proof. #### Is Future Proof free? Yes. Future Proof is free at time.com/newsletters.  by [Justin Worland](https://time.com/author/justin-worland/)  ## Justin Worland Senior Correspondent May 26, 2016 2:09 PM UTC  by [Justin Worland](https://time.com/author/justin-worland/)  ## Justin Worland Senior Correspondent May 26, 2016 2:09 PM UTC Chemicals in household products [have been manufactured](http://time.com/3679218/epa-still-slow-to-study-toxic-chemicals-despite-obama-pledge/) and sold with [few checks](http://time.com/4229503/plastic-in-microwave-is-it-safe/) on their safety for decades in the United States—a system some have described as “innocent until proven guilty.” Manufacturers [are allowed](http://time.com/4239561/johnson-and-johnson-toxic-ingredients/) to develop and sell potentially dangerous chemicals—the federal government has [few resources](http://time.com/3843376/chemical-pfas-products/) to stop them. **Read More:** [**That Plastic Container You Microwave In Could Be Super-Toxic**](http://time.com/4229503/plastic-in-microwave-is-it-safe/) Now, in a rare bipartisan move in an election year, Congress appears [poised to pass](https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2576) the most comprehensive overhaul of federal chemical regulation in more than 40 years. Changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act, known as TSCA, will require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to consent to new chemicals before they are sold on the open market, rather than after the fact. President Obama is expected to sign the measure. “This is a sweeping legislation…with monumental benefits for virtually every man, woman and child in the United States,” said Congressman John Shimkus, an Illinois Republican, on the House floor [before passage of the law in the House](https://shimkus.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/shimkus-leads-landmark-update-of-chemical-safety-law). “There is a widespread and understandable concern that no one is well served by the current law.” **Read More:** [**EPA Still Slow to Study Toxic Chemicals, Despite Obama Pledge**](http://time.com/3679218/epa-still-slow-to-study-toxic-chemicals-despite-obama-pledge/) The new legislation will require chemical manufacturers to submit new chemicals used in everything from consumer electronics to furniture to the EPA for testing and analysis before the chemicals can be commercially produced. The EPA will then have six months to determine whether a chemical poses a safety risk, needs further study or is unlikely to harm people or the environment. The legislation also creates provisions to allow the EPA to review the thousands of chemicals already on the market that have not been approved by the federal government. Crucially, the EPA will be able to assess risk without considering the cost of replacements. The EPA will also have the authority to issue rules to manage risks, including labeling and full bans. The process of addressing that backlog of chemicals will take years if not decades, experts say. **Read More**: [BPA Is Still Present in 60% of Cans in the U.S.: Study](http://time.com/4275601/bpa-replacement-canned-food/) The legislation’s bipartisan support—it passed the House of Representatives 403 to 12 and awaits a vote in the Senate, where it is expected to pass—suggests how frustrated business, consumer and environmental groups have grown over the existing law. Environmental and health groups have complained for years that existing federal law lacks the teeth that allow the government to take action against real risks, even as new science has shown that even very low doses of some chemicals can carry unexpected threats to human health. The EPA has only regulated five chemicals under the existing law, and many hazardous chemicals have failed to meet some of the provisions. That includes asbestos, which the EPA has failed to ban despite strong evidence that the chemical contributes to cancer. [Business groups](https://www.americanchemistry.com/Policy/Chemical-Safety/TSCA) have also complained about the fragmented regulatory scheme the law has created as states have been left to regulate chemicals where the federal government has not. That uncertainty is bad for business—and enough to convince many industry groups to support the new federal legislation. But a number of health and environmental groups say that the new legislation may ultimately not be an improvement over current law. Much will depend on implementation. The measure does not fully explain how the EPA will fund the work of new regulation, and it simultaneously weakens states’ authority to pass their own, tougher legislation. In the past, states have stepped in to regulate chemicals in the absence of leadership by the federal government. Lynn Bergeson, managing partner at the environmental law and government affairs firm Bergeson & Campbell, says the new approach could be seen as a “don’t call us, we’ll call you” approach for the states. “States that are mindful of what they need to do to protect their citizens don’t want that,” she says. Some environmental groups also say the bill does not account for how the EPA can live up to its mandate given constraints on time and money. The agency has said it will begin its review of existing chemicals with a list of 10 priority subjects, with plans to take more on in the future. But in the accounting of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), around a 1,000 chemicals need review, according to Melanie Benesh, an attorney at the environmental advocacy group. Ruling on those chemicals with current resources could take decades, even as new chemicals will be introduced over time. “The compromise version looks like a house of cards,” says Leonardo Trasande, a New York University professor who studies environmental health. “It has a very strong principles, but the implementation could leave less than the desired outcome.” ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/4348103/tsca-congress-chemical-reform/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/4348103/tsca-congress-chemical-reform/"},"headline":"Will Congress's Chemical Safety Reform Protect Us? It Depends","datePublished":"2016-05-26T14:09:38.000Z","dateModified":"2026-02-22T17:50:19.196Z","description":"Americans are surrounded by tens of thousands of chemicals that haven't been fully tested for safety","url":"https://time.com/4348103/tsca-congress-chemical-reform/","keywords":["Environment","Congress"],"thumbnailUrl":"","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Justin Worland","jobTitle":"Senior Correspondent","url":"https://time.com/author/justin-worland/"}],"articleSection":"Science","image":[],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/science/","name":"Science"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"/tag/environment/","name":"Environment"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/4348103/tsca-congress-chemical-reform/","name":"Will Congress's Chemical Safety Reform Protect Us? It Depends"}}]}] ```