A new state law addressing toxic flame retardants recently enacted in California is the latest in a string of successful state efforts to improve chemical safety. In response to insufficient federal controls on toxic chemicals, many states have passed or proposed their own policies to protect residents from the risks posed by hazardous chemicals. In the absence of comprehensive national protections, it is imperative that states take the lead in addressing risks to health and safety.

In May, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed two rules to protect the public from the risks of formaldehyde exposure. The first rule sets emissions standards for formaldehyde in composite wood products; the second establishes requirements for third-party certifications of products subject to those emissions limits. The use of third-party programs to assess regulatory compliance is growing as agencies try to stretch scarce resources, raising troubling questions about enforcement of important standards and safeguards.

On July 18, the Senate confirmed Gina McCarthy to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), ending a 136-day delay. Nominated by President Obama in March, McCarthy was finally cleared by a bipartisan vote of 59-40.

On May 23, Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) reintroduced the Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA), a serious threat to environmental standards, workplace safety rules, public health, and financial reform regulations. The Regulatory Accountability Act of 2013, (S. 1029, and its counterpart in the House, H.R. 2122), is the latest version of a bill first introduced in 2011 and then again in 2012. The seemingly innocuous legislation is a drastic overhaul of the Administrative Procedure Act that would undermine the regulatory process. Advertised by its sponsors as a bipartisan proposal to improve rulemaking, the RAA would actually do the opposite.

Recently disclosed documents show that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) weakened a proposed Food and Drug Administration (FDA) food safety rule. During the regulatory review process, OIRA removed important safety testing requirements from the "preventative controls" rule, which were intended to prevent foodborne pathogens from entering the food supply. Unfortunately, this is nothing new. OIRA has a long track record of changing the draft rules it reviews, often weakening them to appease regulated entities. In this case, the public was made aware of the rule revisions only because FDA followed the requirement to disclose changes made during OIRA review.

As committees of the 113th Congress begin to implement their agendas, it is increasingly apparent that environmental and health standards, and the science serving as the basis for these protections, will remain a favorite target of anti-regulatory legislators. Last session's industry-supported proposals to change scientific assessment programs would undermine environmental, health, and safety standards, yet they are likely to reappear. Meanwhile, new investigations underscore that these measures ignore the real impediments to improving the credibility and usefulness of agency science and risk assessments.