In February 2022, France and the United States announced their commitment to protect our shared environment for future generations against the harm resulting plastic pollution.Both nations stated their united recognition of the transboundary impacts of plastic pollution and the importance of mitigating plastic waste at its source. On March 2, 2022, as reported by the 5th UN Environment Assembly (UNAE-5.2) in Nairobi, both France and the United States, along with 173 other nations, adopted a Resolution to End Plastic Pollution with an international legally binding agreement by 2024, with discussions beginning in 2022. Significantly, the Resolution to End Plastic Pollution defines “plastic waste” to include “microplastic.” Building upon the historic collaboration between France and the United States regarding plastic waste and learning from the contrasts in their governmental structures and approaches to environmental regulation, this French and United States Comparative Law Analysis and Recommendations Regarding Plastic Waste is offered for use by policy makers in the upcoming negotiations regarding the global plastic waste treaty.

Lawyers counselling companies in the biotechnology, biopesticide and related crop protection and industrial biotechnology areas appreciate the critically important role federal agencies play in ensuring the success of start-up businesses.

Federal agencies, including the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), among others, wield enormous power over businesses that require premarket product approval. While we product approval practitioners know this, it comes as a bit of a surprise when investors, poised to make multimillion-dollar investments in start-up businesses, neglect to focus on the regulatory integrity of the start-up. This lack of focus invites costly mistakes. This article explains why, and how to avoid making these mistakes.

New chemical innovation is not as celebrated as innovation in electronics, materials, software, or other sectors, but it is every bit as important. Many believe, as do we, that new chemical innovation is essential to achieving sustainable development. For this reason, a close look at the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) implementation of them offers valuable insights into whether the new U.S. industrial chemical management law and EPA policy initiatives implementing it are aligned with this goal. This article discusses EPA’s implementation of the TSCA amendments as they relate to new chemical innovation and highlights EPA policy positions and institutional practices that EPA should reconsider to alignmore closely with the goal of more sustainable new chemical technologies.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published a final rule on July 5, 2019, amending its “Guidelines for Designating Biobased Products for Federal Procurement” to include 30 more product categories for biobased products that may receive procurement preference by federal agencies and their contractors. These 30 product categories contain finished products made, in large part, from intermediate ingredients designated for federal procurement preference. This article explains why Chemical Processing readers should note this important development.

The 21st Century has witnessed intense renewed interest in commercialising new biobased chemicals, defined generally to include chemicals that are derived fromplants and otherrenewablematerials. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is the U.S. law thatregulatesindustrial chemicalsubstances,including biobased chemicals, used in applications other than food, drugs, cosmetics, and pesticides, or uses that are regulated by other federal authorities. TSCA wassignificantly amended in 2016, and stakeholders need now more than ever to understand how TSCA applies to biobased chemicals to appreciate the implications of new TSCA on their commercial operations. Doing so will better assure uninterrupted business operations and consistent TSCA compliance.

On May 4, 2018, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) proposed a rule to establish the first ever National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (NBFDS) mandated by Congress in 2016. This column discusses the proposal, what it intends to achieve, and its implications.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is the federal gap-filling chemical control law regulating chemical substances used in applications other than food, drugs, cosmetics, and pesticides, and other uses that are regulated by other federal authorities. Chemical product innovators need to understand how TSCA, significantly amended in 2016, applies to biomass starting material, including industrial microorganisms (such as algae), intermediates, and commercial products, and build TSCA compliance into business timelines and budgets. Doing so will better assure uninterrupted business operations and consistent TSCA compliance.

Nanotechnology, biotechnology, and synthetic biology are the ploughs and tractors of the twenty-first century. These precision farming tools are ensuring a sustainable food supply otherwise threatened by climate change and population growth, among other global challenges. Genetically modified E. coli is being used to produce synthetically derived pheromones, substances beneficially used in agricultural applications to attract, capture, and eliminate harmful pests. Nanopesticides and nanofertilizers are being effectively used in drought-stricken regions, eliminating or minimizing the need for conventional agricultural chemicals. These and similar technologies are essential to enable today’s agricultural professionals to compete with an increasingly unforgiving Mother Nature and an ever-increasing demand for food.

These emerging technologies do not come without potential risks, however. How to regulate them is a  subject upon which stakeholders disagree.

Against this backdrop, this article considers emerging agricultural technologies, and discusses domestic agricultural oversight systems and their ability to keep pace with innovation. As discussed below, the domestic governance system is capable of addressing comprehensively the potential risks posed by these evolving technologies. The system, however, could be improved by better integration of measures  to educate policy makers and regulators on these technologies, and greater involvement by the private  sector in facilitating a predictable flow of information on these technologies to all stakeholders.

The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, P.L. 114-182, significantly amends the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The Act was signed into law by President Obama on June 22, 2016. The date of signature is both the date of enactment and of entry into force of amended TSCA. New TSCA fundamentally changes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approach to evaluating and managing industrial chemicals, including genetically engineered microorganisms. The body of changes, the careful balancing of countless competing needs and interests, and artful drafting yield a statute that has been greatly strengthened and addresses virtually all of the deficiencies that have impeded TSCA's effectiveness over the years.  The changes are consequential, and stakeholders in the industrial biotechnology community could be greatly impacted by them, depending upon how EPA interprets and discharges its new authorities. This article highlights key changes of which stakeholders should be aware, sets forth the law's schedule by which EPA is to implement the changes, and identifies opportunities for stakeholders to engage in rulemaking or other activities to help influence the implementation process to ensure that it is firmly rooted in a clear understanding of the science, and of the risks and benefits offered by products of industrial biotechnology.

Biotechnology is an area of growing domestic and international importance to the manufacturing sector, and this summer the federal government announced several important biotechnology initiatives of which stakeholders should be aware. This article from the Winter, 2015, issue of Environmental Quality Management explains each initiative, and outlines why stakeholders are encouraged to engage in each one.

The pathway to market for new products utilizing synthetic biology can be difficult to navigate, posing a challenge for companies in their efforts to commercialize new ideas, while the novelty posed by some of these products can make it difficult for regulatory agencies to evaluate risks. This report from the Synthetic Biology Project,The DNA of the U.S. Regulatory System: Are We Getting It Right for Synthetic Biology?, looks at the current regulatory oversight of synthetic biology in the United States through the lens of different products. The case studies in the report look at synthetic organisms, synthetic chemicals, biopesticides, biomining products, and genetically modified plants, which are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration and U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“Our report demonstrates the regulatory complexity innovators face in seeking to commercialize their products,” says Lynn Bergeson, lead author of the report and managing partner at Bergeson & Campbell PC. “The report offers some common-sense and easily implemented solutions to help federal agencies do their jobs more efficiently and offers suggestions for the regulated community to be more proactive in expanding the technological literacy of the agencies with jurisdictional oversight over their products.”

The summer of 2015 was surprisingly busy in the industrial biotechnology policy and regulatory arenas with three important announcements regenerating lots of buzz.  On July 2, 2015, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of Management and Budget, the US Trade Representative, and the Council on Environmental Quality issued a memorandum directing EPA, FDA, and USDA to update and modernize the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology.  A few weeks later, EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) announced a project intended to support public dialog concerning the development and use of biotechnology by developing a new algae “how to” document for Toxic Substances Control Act Purposes, and to help jump start much needed public discourse around the topic of biotechnology in general.  Finally, OPPT also announced that it is updating its Points to Consider in the Preparation of TSCA Biotechnology Submissions for Microorganisms. Each of these developments is important. This article discusses these initiatives, offers insights on why stakeholders should applaud these opportunities, and urges stakeholders to seize the moment and to engage vigorously in them.  

With little fanfare, on July 2, 2015, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Council on Environmental Quality issued a memorandum directing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to update the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology. Last updated in 1992 and first rolled out in 1986, the Coordinated Framework outlines a comprehensive federal regulatory policy for products of biotechnology. The memorandum could have significant implications for innovators in the biotechnology and synthetic biology commercial space.

Imagine receiving a certified letter from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announcing that it plans to conduct an audit of your company’s facility in two weeks. The audit will focus on your company’s compliance obligations as a chemical manufacturer under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Would you be prepared or are you unsure of what TSCA is and whether it applies to you? This article explains how TSCA applies to biobased chemicals and how nomenclature and chemical identity can impact commercialization.

In the second installment of this series, I wrote about how the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulates products across a manufacturing process, from feedstock to product. In this last installment, I present options for updating TSCA and the related implementing regulations to put novel, biobased chemistry on an even footing with incumbent products and processes that were grandfathered in as part of the original TSCA Inventory. The key is to find a way to level the field without compromising the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) mission and authority to protect human health and the environment.

In the first installment of this series, I wrote about how the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulates products. In this article, we will look across a manufacturing process. TSCA applies to chemical substances that are used for purposes other than food, food additives, animal feed, cosmetics, drugs, tobacco and tobacco products, pesticides, munitions, and nuclear source materials. Biobased chemicals, that is, chemicals made from lignocellulose or other biomass, are finding markets in food and cosmetic markets, but much of the recent innovation focuses on biobased fuels and commodity chemicals. For these final products, TSCA applies. Chemical products must be listed on the TSCA Inventory of Chemical Substances (the Inventory) or be eligible for an exemption. If the product is not listed on the Inventory, the manufacturer must file a premanufacture notification 90 days before manufacturing (or importing) that substance or qualify for an appropriate exemption.

Bioeconomy companies recognize that their products are subject to a variety of federal chemical regulations, especially if they sell food, food additives, cosmetics, or other products regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Unfortunately, companies may not recognize all the ways that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates bioproducts, perhaps because of the understandable focus on the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the various programs under that authority: Renewable Fuel Standard, fuel additive registration, or other CAA submissions. TSCA also applies to bioproducts used in industrial, commercial, and most consumer products, including fuels. TSCA reporting requirements are in addition to, and separate from, CAA reporting.

Synthetic biology is delivering on its promise as an emerging scientific field in providing society with effective new sustainable products in diverse areas including renewable energy, contamination remediation, and medical applications, among others. As is the case with any rapidly evolving technology, the pace of technological innovation challenges regulators’ ability to identify and address adequately the substantial uncertainties they confront when discharging their legal obligations under controlling laws to ensure human and environmental safety. This article provides a brief description of synthetic biology, discusses the current domestic regulatory framework that governs the regulation of products of synthetic biology, and focuses narrowly on options and opportunities the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), innovators in the area of synthetic biology, and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)-regulated community at large may wish to consider to enhance TSCA’s core adaptive capacity to identify and address potential health and environmental risk implications posed by the commercialization of products of synthetic biology.

In last week’s Special Report on Scale-up in Industrial Biotechnology, the Digest noted that a consistent lesson shared by leading biotech heavyweights at the BIO World Congress scale-up session is to “avoid an afterthought approach to regulatory compliance.” As luck and good scheduling would have it, after lunch on the same day, savvy conference-goers got up-close-and-personal with two senior U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulators and a seasoned company executive involved with biobased chemicals at a session titled “Commercializing Renewable Chemicals and Biobased Products: The Importance of Successfully and Efficiently Navigating the Regulatory Process.” This article highlights the top tips for gaining EPA regulatory approval shared by EPA’s Dr. Tracy Williamson and Dr. David Widawsky at the session.

Biofuels have gotten all the press. But biobased chemicals have equal environmental and health potential, and also the most exposure under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Implications range from irritating to crippling, depending upon a manufacturer’s response.

The application of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to biobased chemicals is sometimes overlooked, given the enthusiasm supporting the commercialization of biobased products. This “Washington Watch” article explains TSCA’s application to these products and outlines strategies to ensure the successful marketing of biobased chemical products.

On June 14, 2013, the EPA proposed revisions to the Renewable Fuel Standard. The amendments seek to clear up some fuel classifications to ease the burden on the industry. The proposal would allow use of biogas from landfills to meet the obligations imposed on refiners and importers to utilize renewable feedstocks in transportation fuels; also, it clarifies the renewable biofuels that can be categorized as cellulosic biofuels. This article discusses the revisions.

While regulators are generally supportive of new chemistries that can replace older, petroleum-based ones, biobased chemicals are subject to the same Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that governs every other chemical substance in the United States. Surprisingly, biobased chemicals that are considered to be “new chemicals” may actually receive more scrutiny under this law than established chemicals do. The following article provides practical information about the TSCA provisions that are most relevant to biobased chemicals, regulatory outcomes of Premanufacture Notification (PMN) review, and strategies stakeholders can use to assure compliance and successful commercialization of biobased chemicals.

Renewable chemicals are emerging at a fast pace, paving the way for new, innovative, and sustainable biobased products. The renewable chemicals’ market is estimated to reach $83.4 billion by 2018 in applications ranging from transportation and agriculture to textiles and cosmetics. In addition to all the elements great companies need to succeed -- a great product, a great brand, inspiring leadership, and vision -- biobased product companies need to understand how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) occupies a virtual seat at their management table, whether or not they know it.

On February 21, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a new approach to assure compliance with renewable fuel volume standards and minimize fraud. The proposal offers an alternative voluntary quality assurance program (QAP) to combat fraudulently procured Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs), which have been the source of problems in the past. Comments on the proposal are due April 18, 2013. This column explains the proposal and why a new option is needed.

The dual national goals of reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil and greening the economy converge in biobased chemicals, the promising and rapidly evolving field of technology that produces commercial chemicals from renewable feedstocks. Although biobased chemicals have a long history, increasing sensitivity to reliance on nonrenewable feedstocks and the environmental impact of petroleum-derived chemicals have hastened the commercialization of biobased chemicals, and today they are in production as never before. According to one estimate, biobased chemicals’ share of the global chemical industry is expected to grow from 2% in 2008 to 22% by 2025. Lux Research reports that biobased chemicals capacity will double in market potential to $19.7 billion in 2016.