EPA reviews new chemical notifications and if it finds an "unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment," it may regulate the substance from limiting uses or production volume to outright banning it.

[12] The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 mandated the EPA to protect the public from "unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment" by regulating the manufacture, processing, distribution, use, sale, and disposal of chemicals.

[23] TSCA limits the manufacture, processing, commercial distribution, use, and disposal of chemical substances including PCBs, asbestos, radon and lead-based paint.

[19] However, a series of environmental disasters, such as the Kepone catastrophe at Hopewell, Virginia,[26][4] and the pollution of the Hudson River "and other waterways by PCBs, the threat of stratospheric ozone depletion from chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions, and contamination of agricultural products by polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) in the State of Michigan" provided a clearer picture of the costs of weak regulation over toxic substances.

[24] The EPA has also created the Sustainable Futures (SF) Initiative model, which allows companies to voluntarily screen their products that might pose risks to human health or the environment.

[44] Many environmental groups, such as Natural Resources Defense Council, complain that the EPA is nearly powerless to take regulatory action against dangerous chemicals, even those known to cause cancer or other serious health effects.

In consequence, only 40 percent of acute toxicity and mutagenicity testing is ever completed, even less data on long-term effects or specific endpoints (including subchronic, neurotoxicological, developmental, reproductive, and chronic) is ever generated.

[44] In order to compensate for this deficiency of data, Section 5 of TSCA created The Structure Activity Team (SAT) along with structural-activity relations (SARs) to review PMN chemicals.

TSCA had been severely criticized by non-governmental organizations, academics, scientists, and even government agencies for failing to regulate the safe use of chemicals affecting human health and environmental welfare effectively.

"[53] Organizations concerned about product safety, "including the chemical industry, environmental and public health advocates, and the EPA"[53] have attempted to mitigate the effects of weak regulation.

"[54] The report criticized the process by which the EPA handles new TSCA cases, claiming it is "predisposed to protect industry information rather than to provide public access to health and safety studies.

[38][59] The modernization of TSCA can give the chemical industry a standard to follow and allow them to market their products for domestic consumption or international sales without having to spend more money trying to comply with a myriad of individual state regulations.

Labeling is an alternative solution to give the consumer the freedom to choose what products to buy "as a condition for entering or remaining on the market, using a standard that establishes a reasonable certainty of no harm.

"[63] Similarly, the state of California implemented the Green Chemistry Initiative (CGCI) in an effort to increase innovation and reduce or eliminate hazardous substances to human health and the environment.

The ultra fine nano particles can enter the human body via the skin, lungs or intestinal tract and may induce undesirable genetic changes as a side effect.

[35] TSCA can promote environmental justice in communities where minorities and low-income residents disproportionately bear great exposure to toxic chemicals increasing their risk to suffer from "chronic diseases and conditions such as prostate cancer, learning disabilities, asthma, infertility, and obesity.

Communities from minority groups are disproportionately affected by "environmental threats from toxic contamination, locally unwanted land use (LULUs) to unsafe and substandard housing and natural-resource extractions" cannot wait for years until bureaucratic processes demonstrate their health has been at risk from living under these conditions.

"[71] Eventually, industrial facilities may contribute to the depreciation of property in the neighboring areas affecting the value of housing because of noise, release of pollutants, and fear of health impact.

Environmental disparities is a prevalent issue for low income-people as they become trapped in "housing discrimination"[71] living in polluted neighborhoods unable to relocate to a nicer area.

[73][74] This concern is reflected in the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which includes a requirement that EPA evaluate risk to "potentially exposed and susceptible subpopulations.

[83] Pregnant women exposure to toxic chemicals in daily basis "can impact the reproductive and developmental health" during critical windows of development, this may lead to a higher risk for birth defects and childhood illnesses and "disability across the entire span of human life.

[93] For instance, "Kaiser Permanente, a major medical supply purchaser, has a policy to avoid chemicals associated with cancer, reproductive problems and genetic mutations.

"[94] Corporation social responsibility (CSR) is the moral obligation of the firm "to create success in ways that honors ethical values and respect to communities while promoting sustainability and a good reputation.

[114] In addition, the Environmental Defense Fund supports S. 697, stating that it "will give [the] EPA the tools necessary to better ensure the safety of chemicals and significantly strengthen health protections for American families.

[118] Congress passed a reconciled version of the reform bill, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, with bipartisan support in early June 2016.

On Wednesday, June 22, 2016, President Barack Obama signed the bill into law, remarking that "even in the current polarized political process here in Washington, things can work."

[59] In order to compensate the gap of actual test data in section 5, a process involving structure-activity relationship (SAR) was created to assess hazardous risks.

Under the TSCA, the EPA needs to collect data to assess the potential risks of chemicals and requires developing substantial evidence in order to withstand judicial review and policy making.

[121] In this extent of TSCA, the EPA' s ability is restricted to share information including the company's identities, the chemical's structures to any public groups except the designated contractors, or to law enforcement officials.

[34] Also one of the main strength of REACH is in the extent to which the government intends to make the public receive as much as information possible, including identification of substances of a very high concern that are subject to authorization.