Celinda Lake, Lake Research Partners Washington, DC | Berkeley, CA | New York, NY| Richmond, VA Political Landscape and Attitudes around TSCA Reform A presentation for the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators July 18, 2010

Snapshot of the 2010 Elections and Lay of the Land

3 Key Findings Voters are very negative about the direction of the country, and they are taking this negativity out on President Obama, and especially Congress. The economy dominates the issue agenda. The stress of the economy is very real and personal to voters. A significant portion have either lost a job, seen reduced wages, or had cuts in their health care benefits. It’s not just about keeping your job, it’s keeping your pay and benefits to a level that will make ends meet. Additionally, a large majority of voters feel the economy is either stuck (i.e. hasn’t improved) or is getting worse. As of a week ago, disapproval of President Obama's handling of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was growing nationally, and in the most affected counties on the Gulf Coast, residents disapprove by nearly 3 to 1. Nationwide, Americans support the six-month ban on new offshore drilling, but residents near the Gulf oppose it.

4 More than half of Americans are pessimistic about the direction of the country—fewer than during the Bush years, but negativity persists as the economic crisis drags on. Source: NBC/Wall Street Journal. June 17-21, N=1000 adults nationwide.

5 Voters are mixed on the job President Obama is doing. They are far more unified, however, in their contempt for Congress—over seven in ten disapprove of the job Congress is doing President Obama Source: Washington Post/ABC. July 7-11, N=1,288 adults nationwide. Congress Source: NBC/Wall Street Journal. June 17-21, N=1000 adults nationwide.

Americans are net negative toward the way President Obama is handling health care, regulation of the financial industry, the economy, the oil spill, and the federal budget deficit. Source: Washington Post/ABC. July 7-11, N=1,288 adults nationwide

7 Voters equally disapprove of the job that both Democrats and Republicans in Congress are doing Source: Newsweek. June 23-24, N=964 adults nationwide.

8 Voters are not feeling confident about Obama, Democrats or Republicans in Congress making the right decisions for the country’s future Source: Washington Post/ABC. July 7-11, N=1,288 adults nationwide.

By more than two to one, voters are inclined to look around for someone else to voter rather than their representative in Congress. Source: Washington Post/ABC. July 7-11, N=1,288 adults nationwide.

In a generic ballot, voters split between the Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate. Source: Washington Post/ABC. July 7-11, N=1,288 adults nationwide.

Republicans hold a significant advantage on enthusiasm for voting in the midterm elections. Source: Gallup. June 28-July 3, N=1,354 adults nationwide.

12 Voters are mixed towards a candidate’s stance on health care reform, federal economic stimuli, and the Tea Party. No Difference Source: Washington Post/ABC. July 7-11, N=1,288 adults nationwide

13 The heated rhetoric and polarization emanating from the Tea Party Movement, and echoed by certain GOP leaders, makes bipartisanship challenging. Republican voters are the most favorable toward the Tea Party Movement, though independents are also net positive in their impressions. The outsider message is working because voters do not see Washington working for them. Source: LRP/Tarrance Group Battleground Survey. April 5-8, N=1,000 Registered likely voters nationwide. Tea Party Movement Favorability

A plurality of Americans are dissatisfied with the way the federal government works, and another one in five are angry Source: Washington Post/ABC. July 7-11, N=1,288 adults nationwide.

15 Job creation and economic growth is the top priority for the federal government, followed by the oil spill and government spending. Source: NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey. June 17-21, adults nationwide.

16 A majority of Americans see the economy as either staying the same or getting worse. The Same or Worse Better Source:

17 Job loss, reduced wages, and lost health insurance has impacted a significant portion of voters—especially blue collar voters. Democracy Corps, May 2010

18 Thinking about the next 12 months, just under half of Americans are worried that they or someone in their household will be out of a job. Yet, more worry that they or someone in their household will not be working enough hours to make ends meet over the next year. LRP survey of 1,004 adults nationwide, with oversamples of 100 African American women, 100 Latinas, 100 single mothers, and 200 low-income women. The survey was conducted January 19 to February 3, 2010.

Public Attitudes Around TSCA Reform Findings from Survey Research

Key Findings

Voters tend to be unclear whether or not chemicals are adequately regulated currently and they are easily moved toward support for reform and greater regulation. They initially support the Toxic Substances Control Act, but upon hearing information on its limitations, support drops off significantly. People are particularly concerned to hear that chemicals in existence prior to 1976 have been grandfathered in, that the EPA was unsuccessful in banning asbestos, and that only 200 chemicals have been tested in the years that TSCA has been in effect. A strong majority of voters support the proposed reform legislation. They are particularly receptive to hearing that chemicals detected in babies will be taken off the market, that exposure to toxic chemicals will be reduced as much as possible, that chemicals will be tested and shown to be safe within the next 15 years, and that the states will continue to be able to enact their own tougher policies.

Key Findings Top messages in support of reform include an emphasis on long term impacts of chemicals, chronic conditions and other serious health problems, and the impact on babies and children. Voters are receptive to a number of possible names for the legislation on regulating chemicals. The top choices are Toxic Chemicals Control Act and Safer Chemicals Act, followed closely by other options.

Attitudes Toward the Chemical Industry and the Toxic Substances Control Act Voters tend to be unclear whether or not chemicals are adequately regulated currently and they are easily moved toward support for reform and greater regulation.

Voters tend to hold positive views of the EPA, while they are more divided over the chemical industry. Please tell me whether you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable impression of the Environmental Protection Agency or EPA? Please tell me whether you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable impression of the chemical industry? *Split sampled question 11% Don’t know 27% Those who are most unfavorable toward the chemical industry include: women under 50, non college educated women, Democrats, particularly Democratic women, and mothers.

Few trust the chemical industry. Only one in five voters give the industry a positive rating and only three percent express any intensity. On a scale that goes from 0 to 10 where 0 means not trust at all and 10 means trust completely, how much would you say you trust the chemical industry?* Mean % *Split sampled question

Voters tend to be unclear whether or not chemicals are adequately regulated and tested currently. Roughly a third of voters are unsure whether chemicals we use are tested or regulated for safety, while a plurality of roughly four in ten say they are being tested and regulated. To the best of your knowledge, do you think the chemicals we use in our daily lives are tested for safety or aren’t you sure?* *Split sampled question To the best of your knowledge, do you think the chemicals we use in our daily lives are regulated for safety or aren’t you sure?*

A strong majority of voters support the Toxic Substances Control Act when given a description. Intensity is also strong, with nearly half of voters expressing strong support. Attitudes on TSCA

Text of Act Let me read you a short description about how chemicals are regulated in our country. In 1976, the Toxic Substances Control Act, known as TSCA was passed to regulate chemicals. It gave the EPA the authority to require reporting and testing of chemicals and the power to control chemical substances. The EPA may require manufacturers to test their chemicals if there is concern about risks or exposure. The law requires manufacturers to immediately inform the EPA if a substance presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment. Having heard this description, do you favor or oppose TSCA, the current national law that governs chemical policy?

Support for the Toxic Substances Control Act is strong across partisan lines. Attitudes on TSCA

The elements of the legislation that elicit greatest concern include that chemicals in existence prior to 1976 have been grandfathered in, that the EPA was unsuccessful in banning asbestos, and that only 200 chemicals have been tested in the years that TSCA has been in effect. Now I am going to read you some different statements. Please tell me if the statement makes you very concerned, somewhat concerned, a little concerned, or not at all concerned about TSCA. *Split sampled question TSCA grandfathered or approved all chemicals that were in existence prior to 1976 without requiring they be tested. The EPA tried to use TSCA to ban asbestos in the 1980’s, but the law wouldn’t allow them to and it hasn’t tried again. TSCA assumes that chemicals are safe until they are proven harmful. Since 1976, only five chemicals in use have been restricted under TSCA. In the 33 years since TSCA was passed by Congress, the EPA has required testing on just 200 of the 80,000 chemicals produced and used in the U.S.

Support for TSCA drops significantly once people hear more detailed information. Sometimes in a survey like this people change their minds… Do you favor or oppose TSCA, the current national law that governs chemical policy? Support declines by double digit margins across demographic groups.

Additionally, people grow more convinced that regulations on chemicals are not strong enough once they hear details on TSCA. Do you think the regulations on chemicals are too strong, not strong enough, are about right, or aren’t you sure? After hearing information on TSCA’s limitations, majorities of voters across most demographic groups say regulations on chemicals are not strong enough. The exceptions are independent and Republican men (49 percent and 47 percent say not strong enough respectively).

Attitudes on Chemical Reform Voters strongly support reform of the existing chemical regulations.

A strong majority of roughly seven in ten voters support the proposed legislation, when given a brief description. Attitudes on the Proposed Legislation

Text of proposed legislation Now let me read you a description of a new bill that may be introduced in Congress that is designed to update the regulations for chemicals being sold. Under this bill all chemical manufacturers would be required to provide information that shows their chemicals are safe in order to enter or remain on the market. The proposed new law would give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) new power to restrict chemicals that are not shown to be safe and that may be harming the health of the public and the environment, including the power to ban some or all uses of a chemical, or require that people's exposure to the chemical be reduced. However, where a use of a chemical is critical and there are no good alternatives, it would be allowed to stay on the market for a limited period of time.

While Democrats express the greatest support for chemical reform, the majority of independents and Republicans also favor the legislation. Attitudes on the Proposed Legislation

The elements of the legislation that are particularly popular include that chemicals detected in babies will be taken off the market, that exposure to toxic chemicals will be reduced as much as possible, that chemicals will be tested and shown to be safe within the next 15 years, and that the states will continue to be able to enact their own tougher policies. Let me tell you a little bit more about this proposed bill. For each please tell me if the statement makes you more or less favorable toward the bill Congress is considering to regulate chemicals that are being sold.* *Split sampled question Exposure to other toxic chemicals, such as formaldehyde, that have been extensively studied, will be reduced to the maximum extent possible. A process will be created so that all chemicals in use must be tested and shown to be safe over the next 15 years. The states will continue to be able to enact tougher chemical policies. If a chemical is detected in babies at birth or in infants, it will be taken off the market.

Messages The top messages in support of reform include an emphasis on long term impacts of chemicals, chronic conditions and other serious health problems, and the impact on babies and children.

Top messages in support of reform focus on long term impacts of chemicals, chronic conditions and other serious health problems, and the impact on babies and children. Now I am going to read you some statements people have given in support of putting more regulations on chemicals and I want you to tell me how convincing a message it is to make you SUPPORT putting more regulations on chemicals – very convincing, somewhat convincing, a little convincing, or not convincing at all.* *Split sample questions

Text of Top Messages [Long-term Impact] We are already seeing the long-term impact of chemicals that act like hormones in people. Sperm counts are down 50 percent from our father's generation, female reproductive problems like endometriosis have increased, 250,000 babies are born with birth defects each year, and a woman’s lifetime risk of breast cancer has nearly tripled during the past four decades. We need to do more to regulate chemicals and study their effects. [Chronic conditions/savings] Almost half of all Americans live with at least one chronic disease, like asthma, diabetes, Alzheimer's, or heart disease. Every day more science is coming out that links chemicals to these health problems. If we could just prevent one percent of these chronic conditions by controlling chemicals we would save 15 billion dollars in medical costs every year as well as untold death and suffering. [Serious health problems] New science is linking exposure to toxic chemicals to the increases in a variety of health effects. While the rates of asthma, diabetes, childhood cancers, infertility, and learning and behavioral disorders keep going up, the federal law that should protect us from health- harming chemicals hasn’t changed in 33 years. We need to fix the problem, update the law, and protect future generations from serious health and environmental harm by passing this new law that reduces exposure to dangerous chemicals. [Babies and children vulnerable] Pregnant woman, developing fetuses, and children are especially vulnerable to chemicals. Many babies are born pre-polluted with as many as 300 chemicals in their bodies and after birth children continue to be uniquely vulnerable to toxic exposures. Exposure to hormone-disrupting chemicals, like BPA found in baby bottles, sippy cups, and other products can result in lifelong adverse health effects. We need to do all we can to protect children.

Messages on innovation, nature’s warning, and the EPA being powerless are seen as slightly less convincing. Now I am going to read you some statements people have given in support of putting more regulations on chemicals and I want you to tell me how convincing a message it is to make you SUPPORT putting more regulations on chemicals – very convincing, somewhat convincing, a little convincing, or not convincing at all.* *Split sample questions

Text of Second Tier Messages [Reduce cancer risks] The United States has been fighting a war on cancer for more than 40 years, but cancer rates keep going up because most research focuses on detecting and treating cancer, instead of preventing it. We know there are links between toxic chemicals and serious and chronic health problems, so reducing our exposure to chemicals should be a part of the war on cancer. If we improve the way we test chemicals’ safety, we will reduce our risk of getting cancer. [Cumulative use] The chemical industry claims that certain chemicals present in consumer products have no impact on people because the amounts are so small. But people are exposed to many chemicals from multiple products, like household cleaners, chemicals that leach from carpets and furniture, and chemicals used in personal care products. The cumulative effect of all these chemicals in our daily lives is untested and could be dangerous. [Innovation] This legislation will not only get unsafe chemicals off the market, it will also encourage innovation. It’s a win-win. Smart, ethical businesses are already eliminating toxic chemicals and pursuing greener alternatives and they are being rewarded with the business of savvy, health- conscious consumers. Investing in clean technologies creates new jobs, profitable new markets for farmers and industry, and increases worker safety. Chemical companies should strive to not only do no harm, but to make the world better. [Nature’s warning] For years, we have seen the effects of toxic chemicals in animal populations all around us. Birds that can't reproduce, alligators that are sterile, and deformed frogs and fish along with deformed predators that eat them in our lakes and rivers. We must respond and change the way we use chemicals because humans are not so different. Evidence from the animal world is sufficient to indicate these chemicals are unsafe in humans as well. [Powerless] The EPA does not have enough power to regulate chemicals today. The EPA tried to use TSCA to ban asbestos, a chemical proven to cause a deadly cancer. But when the courts ruled that TSCA doesn’t give the EPA that power, they stopped trying to use TSCA to restrict even the most dangerous chemicals. The Government Accountability Office has issued several reports on TSCA’s failures and added TSCA to a list of government programs that needed immediate reform.

Survey Methodology Lake Research Partners designed and administered this survey, which was conducted by phone using professional interviewers. The survey reached a total of 1000 registered voters nationwide. The survey was conducted August 25 to 31, Telephone numbers for the survey were drawn using an RDD sample. The samples were stratified geographically based on the proportion of voters in each region. Data was weighted by gender, age, region, race, parental status, and party identification to reflect the attributes of the electorate. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 3.1%.

Celinda Lake, Lake Research Partners Washington, DC | Berkeley, CA | New York, | Phoenix, AZ Political Landscape and Attitudes around TSCA Reform A presentation for the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators July 18, 2010