美國專家2月26日向眾議院小組表示，美國化學品管理系統無法保護公共健康及環境，而且迫切需要進行改革。有一些見證者也向眾議院能源及商務委員會（House Energy and Commerce subcommittee）作證表示，現存的法律約束讓聯邦政府幾乎不可能去限制或禁止有毒化學物品的使用，或是取得制訂具實際效力的法規所需的相關資訊。
聽證會的重點著重於討論1976年所頒布的《美國毒性物質管理法》（Toxic Substances Control Act.，TSCA）之有效性，該法規給予美國環保署（EPA）管理化學物品的正當性。
但是該機構只要求在超過82,000種化學品當中抽驗大約200種用於商務用途的化學品，同時其頒佈的法規也僅涉及當時現存的5種化學品。
美國「未來資源」（Resources for the Future，RFF）智庫資深研究員同時也是在美國前總統布希任內負責相關政策的環保署前副主任戴維斯（J. Clarence Davies）表示，這個記錄反映出「在一種化學品能夠加以規範之前必須達到一些非常困難的，甚至也許不可能的要求。」
該項規則要求環保署必須表明，研議中的化學品法規不能和其他可替代的法規一樣窒礙難行，而且在其他法律之下所必須概括的風險也不能完全免除，更有甚者，它必需指明任何一個化學品可能對人類健康所造成的「不合理風險」。
於此，環境保護基金會（Environmental Defense Fund）資深研究員丹尼斯（Richard Denison）指出，要結合這些不同的需求將使得制訂相關法規的負擔越來越重，「基本上幾乎不可能達到。」
丹尼斯和其他證人在聽證會上也提出了，少數可能暴露出法律漏洞的一些例子，如「石棉」這個案例。在花費了約10年的時間收集礦物纖維可能危害人類健康的證據之後，美國環保署終於在1989年《美國毒性物質管理法》的規定之下，試圖要禁止石棉的使用，因為石棉是一種眾所周知的致癌物質。
但是在1991年時，聯邦法院卻封鎖了美國環保署的一切努力，法院裁決該機構無法達到該法概略規範的法律約束。伊利諾州民主黨籍議員，同時也是眾議院「商務、貿易及消費者保護委員會」主席魯什（Bobby Rush）表示，「我想，大多數的美國人都將感到驚訝，如果他們知道石棉這種可能每年殺害8000個美國人的致癌物質，竟然在《美國毒性物質管理法》之下沒有被環保署禁止使用。」
The U.S. chemical regulatory system is failing to protect public health and the environment and is in dire need of reform, experts told a House panel Thursday. The legal hurdles of existing law make it virtually impossible for the federal government to limit or ban the use of toxic chemicals or to even obtain the information needed to devise effective regulations, several witnesses testified before a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee.
The hearing focused on the effectiveness of the Toxic Substances Control Act. Enacted in 1976, the statute gave the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate chemicals.
But the agency has only required testing for some 200 of the more than 82,000 chemicals in commerce and has issued regulations to control only five existing chemicals.
This record reflects a number of "very difficult, perhaps impossible, requirements that must be met before a chemical can be regulated," said J. Clarence Davies, a senior fellow at Resources for the Future and former EPA assistant administrator for policy in under President George H.W. Bush.
The statute requires EPA to show that a proposed chemical regulation is less burdensome than any alternative and that the risk could not be sufficiently reduced under some other law. Furthermore, it must show a chemical presents an "unreasonable risk" to human health.
The combination of the requirements creates a burden so high "that it is essentially impossible to meet," said Richard Denison, a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund.
Few examples expose the shortcomings of the law as brutally as the case of asbestos, Denison and others said at the hearing.
EPA tried to ban asbestos, a known carcinogen, under the Toxic Substances Control Act in 1989, after spending nearly a decade gathering evidence about health risks from the fibrous mineral.
But in 1991 a federal court blocked EPA's effort, ruling that the agency had failed to meet the legal hurdles outlined by the Act.
"I think most Americans would be surprised to know that asbestos, a known carcinogen, that kills 8,000 Americans each and every year has not been banned by EPA under TSCA," said Representative Bobby Rush, an Illinois Democrat and chair of the House Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection Subcommittee, which held the hearing.
作者
In my healing journey and learning to attain the breath awareness, I become aware of the reality that all the creatures of the world are breathing the same breath. Take action, here and now. From my physical being to the every corner of this out of balance's planet.
