%20(9).png)
When it comes to chemical regulation, déjà vu isn’t just a feeling—it’s policy.
Last month, the EPA announced what many are calling “Take 3” on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) framework, reopening the rule that dictates how the agency evaluates and manages risks from chemicals in commerce. And just this week, The Guardian reported that proposed rollbacks under the Trump administration could further weaken oversight of some of the most toxic substances in the U.S. supply chain—including PFAS, asbestos, and formaldehyde.
If you work in retail, manufacturing, or product compliance, this matters more than you might think.
To catch you up:
On paper, that sounds like flexibility. In practice, it could mean that many exposure scenarios—especially downstream uses or end-of-life handling—never get evaluated at all.
For retailers and brands, that uncertainty trickles downstream. The more fragmented the regulatory picture, the harder it becomes to ensure consistent compliance across your product catalog.
Under “Take 3,” EPA could decide that some exposure routes (like disposal or recycling) aren’t “relevant” for evaluation. The agency could also assume proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) when calculating worker risk.
That’s a risky assumption.
As The Guardian points out, real-world conditions rarely match ideal lab scenarios—especially in back-of-store operations, returns processing, or reverse logistics environments where PPE use is inconsistent. For retailers handling returned aerosols, batteries, or cleaning products, this distinction matters: regulatory assumptions determine whether an item is classified as hazardous waste, universal waste, or non-hazardous.
Smarter Sorting’s data shows that classification errors often occur in those gray zones—when product composition meets uncertain regulatory interpretation. Weakening federal assumptions about exposure doesn’t make products safer; it just shifts the liability to those handling them.
If you’re managing compliance at scale—across thousands of SKUs and multiple states—changes to TSCA frameworks aren’t just bureaucratic noise. They affect:
Put simply: less federal oversight doesn’t mean fewer rules—it means more confusion.
At Smarter Sorting, we believe better product intelligence leads to better compliance. Here’s how leading retailers and suppliers are preparing for regulatory volatility:
Chemical regulation is evolving faster than ever—and with every rewrite, the burden on retailers grows. The new TSCA “Take 3” proposal might make risk evaluation easier for regulators, but it makes regulatory accuracy harder for everyone else in the supply chain.
At Smarter Sorting, our mission is simple: to make product data clear enough that compliance doesn’t depend on guesswork—or shifting political tides.
Because when product intelligence leads, compliance follows.