2010 Political Landscape and Attitudes around TSCA Reform
A presentation for the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators
July 18, 2010
Celinda Lake, Lake Research Partners
Washington, DC | Berkeley, CA | New York, NY| Richmond, VA
www.lakeresearch.com
202.776.9066
Snapshot of the 2010 Elections and Lay of the Land
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.
3
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.
Direction of the Country
Don't know, 9%
Right direction,
29%
Wrong direction,
62%
4
Source: NBC/Wall Street Journal. June 17-21, 2010. N=1000 adults nationwide.
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.
Approve
Disapprove
President
50
-47
Congress -73
22
3
-51
5
President Obama Source: Washington Post/ABC. July 7-11, 2010. N=1,288 adults nationwide.
Congress Source: NBC/Wall Street Journal. June 17-21, 2010. 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.
Approve
His duties as Comander in Chief of the
military
-44
55
11
Disapprove
Health care
-50
45
-5
Regulation of the financial industry
-50
44
-6
The economy
-54
43
-11
The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico
-53
41
-12
40
-16
The federal budget deficit
Source: Washington Post/ABC. July 7-11, 2010. N=1,288 adults nationwide.
-56
Voters equally disapprove of the job that both Democrats and
Republicans in Congress are doing.
Approve
Disapprove
Democrats in
Congress
-53
Republicans in
-54
Congress
35
-18
35
-19
7
Source: Newsweek. June 23-24, 2010. N=964 adults nationwide.
Voters are not feeling confident about Obama, Democrats or
Republicans in Congress making the right decisions for the
country’s future.
None at all
Just some
Great deal
Obama
-57
-29
43
24
-14
Good
amount
Democrats in
Congress
-67
Republicans in
-73
Congress
-32
-29
32
12
8
26
-35
-47
8
Source: Washington Post/ABC. July 7-11, 2010. 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.
62
26
Re-elect
Look around
Source: Washington Post/ABC. July 7-11, 2010. N=1,288 adults nationwide.
6
6
Depends (vol.)
No opinion
In a generic ballot, voters split between the
Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate.
46
47
2
Democratic
candidate
Republican
candidate
Source: Washington Post/ABC. July 7-11, 2010. N=1,288 adults nationwide.
Neither (vol)
5
No opinion
Republicans hold a significant advantage on
enthusiasm for voting in the midterm elections.
Enthusiasm about Voting in this Year's Congressional Elections
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
38
25
Democrats very enthusiastic
Source: Gallup. June 28-July 3, 2010. N=1,354 adults nationwide.
Republicans very enthusiastic
Voters are mixed towards a candidate’s stance on health care
reform, federal economic stimuli, and the Tea Party.
No
Difference
Supports new
health care reform
law
-37
Supports federal
spending to try to
stimulate economy
-37
Is associated with
the political
movement known
as the Tea Party
-30
Much more likely to oppose
Much more likely to support
Source: Washington Post/ABC. July 7-11, 2010. N=1,288 adults nationwide.
-31
39
25
-24
-20
39
21
18
30
Somewhat more likely to oppose
Somewhat more likely to support
21
23
36
12
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.
Tea Party Movement Favorability
Favorable
All
-32
38
Unfavorable
Republicans
-12
Independents
Democrats
65
-25
-55
39
12
13
Source: LRP/Tarrance Group Battleground Survey. April 5-8, 2010. N=1,000 Registered likely voters nationwide.
A plurality of Americans are dissatisfied with the way the
federal government works, and another one in five are angry.
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
43
36
64
32
21
4
Enthusiastic
Satisfied
Source: Washington Post/ABC. July 7-11, 2010. N=1,288 adults nationwide.
Dissatisfied
Angry
Job creation and economic growth is the top priority for the federal
government, followed by the oil spill and government spending.
Job creation and economic growth
33
Gulf coast spill and energy
22
Deficit and government spending
15
National Security and terrorism
9
Iraq/Afghanistan Wars
9
Health care
Social issues - abortion and same sex
marriage
All equal
7
2
3
15
Source: NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey. June 17-21, 2010. 1000 adults nationwide.
A majority of Americans see the economy as either staying the
same or getting worse.
The Same or
Worse
73%
State of the National Economy
71%
66%
69%
65%
56%
Better
65%
66%
68%
66%
Ma y
31%
26%
23%
June
Jul y
68%
39%
36%
33%
65%
60%
58%
41%
26%
Apri l
69%
29%
32%
32%
30%
Augus t September October November December Ja nua ry Februa ry
32%
31%
26%
Ma rch
Apri l
Ma y
June
16
Source: http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/
Job loss, reduced wages, and lost health insurance has impacted a significant
portion of voters—especially blue collar voters.
Lost job
Have you or your family...
Reduced wages
Lost health ins.
51
51
45
43
44
40
38
37
27
Total
42
36
26
Less than $50k
Young white blue
collar
Older white blue
collar
17
Democracy Corps, May 2010
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.
Concern That You/Someone in
Household Will be Out of Job
in Next Year
Concern That You/Someone in
Household Will Not be
Working Enough to Make
Ends Meet in Next Year
Not at all concerned
-52%
-45%
A little concerned
-36%
-31%
28%
47%
54%
30%
Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
18
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
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?
Don’t know
Environmental Protection
Agency
Chemical Industry*
Very unfavorable
-28%
-38%
-13%
-18%
Somewhat unfavorable
61%
22%
9%
35%
Very favorable
Somewhat favorable
Those who are most unfavorable toward the chemical industry include: women under 50, non college
educated women, Democrats, particularly Democratic women, and mothers.
*Split sampled question
11%
27%
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?*
21%
Trust in the chemical
3% 7%
industry
10
*Split sampled question
8-9
Mean
4.1
11%
28%
6-7
43%
5
0-4
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?*
43%
Yes, are tested
No, are not
Not sure
*Split sampled question
23%
34%
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?*
Yes, are
regulated
No, are not
Not sure
40%
28%
32%
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
-19%
Strongly oppose
-11%
46%
Not so strongly oppose
Strongly favor
74%
Not so strongly favor
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
Total
-19%
-11%
Democrats
-19%
-9%
Independents
-19%
Republicans
-18%
Strongly oppose
-13%
-11%
46%
74%
76%
49%
74%
48%
43%
Not so strongly oppose
75%
Strongly favor
Not so strongly favor
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.
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.
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.
TSCA assumes that chemicals are safe
until they are proven harmful.
-11%
-17%
-15%
-17%
66%
-5%
-10%
60%
-8%
58%
-6%
52%
87%
80%
84%
81%
Since 1976, only five chemicals in use
-18%
have been restricted under TSCA.
Not at all concerned
*Split sampled question
-7%
A little concerned
49%
Very concerned
78%
Somewhat concerned
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?
-19%
Initial
Informed
Strongly oppose
-34%
-11%
-20%
Not so strongly oppose
74%
46%
26%
Strongly favor
Support declines by double digit margins across demographic groups.
54%
Not so strongly favor
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?
Too strong
5%
8%
49%
Not strong enough
About right
Not sure
28%
21%
19%
12%
Informed
Initial
60%
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
-19%
Strongly oppose
-14%
Not so strongly oppose
53%
Strongly favor
71%
Not so strongly favor
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
Total
-19%
Democrats
Independents
Republicans
-12%
-25%
-23%
Strongly oppose
-14%
53%
-16%
81%
60%
-9%
-18%
71%
50%
63%
47%
Not so strongly oppose
66%
Strongly favor
Not so strongly favor
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.*
If a chemical is detected in babies at birth
or in infants, it will be taken off the market.
-11%
-5%
60%
Exposure to other toxic chemicals, such as
formaldehyde, that have been extensively
studied, will be reduced to the maximum
extent possible.
-11%
-5%
59%
A process will be created so that all
chemicals in use must be tested and shown -14%
to be safe over the next 15 years.
The states will continue to be able to enact
tougher chemical policies.
Much less favorable
*Split sampled question
-12%
-9%
-4%
Somewhat less favorable
57%
56%
Much more favorable
84%
85%
81%
82%
Somewhat more favorable
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.*
61%
Long term impact
57%
Chronic conditions/Savings
57%
Serious health problems
Babies and children
vulnerable
56%
Very convincing
*Split sample questions
Somewhat convincing
87%
85%
85%
82%
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 healthharming 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.*
Reduce cancer risks
52%
81%
Cumulative use
50%
83%
Innovation
47%
47%
Nature's warning
46%
Powerless
Very convincing
*Split sample questions
Somewhat convincing
79%
78%
79%
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, healthconscious 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, 2009.
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%.
2010 Political Landscape and Attitudes around TSCA
Reform
A presentation for the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators
July 18, 2010
Celinda Lake, Lake Research Partners
Washington, DC | Berkeley, CA | New York, | Phoenix, AZ
www.lakeresearch.com
202.776.9066