According to the latest New York Times editorial, the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act must be "reformed," since it's "toothless." How did the expert scientists writing the Times' editorial know how ineffective TSCA was? Well, here's their irrefutable logic: "The failure of the law can be read in these dismal statistics: since 1976, [out of 85,000 chemicals], the EPA has issued regulations to control (sic) only five existing chemicals."
From the Times' point of view, the scarcity of regulation of environmental chemicals must mean that the regulators are not doing their jobs, or (more likely) that the law is just too darn weak to allow them to intervene against the chemical industry to protect our health!
In fact, the law is quite firm when it demands that before a new chemical is allowed into the marketplace, it must be evaluated by the EPA no regulatory slouches there! and subsequently attract no adverse attention by causing illnesses among our population after it is in the stream of commerce. The fact that, as the Times and its many devotees among the activist anti-chemical fringe groups believe, we are simply not being poisoned by toxic chemicals, that the chemicals in our consumer products, foods, cosmetics, and elsewhere are simply safe, never crossed their minds! So if the EPA and TSCA do not produce heads to roll over toxic chemicals, let's strengthen the law and rope in some bad actors among the chemicals which surround us. After all, what's the harm in removing a bunch of products and substances from the marketplace out of regulatory zeal! Can't be too careful can you?
(By the way, if your answer to that was "No, you can't", please read these other excellent pieces about why chemophobia can indeed hurt you by Jon Entine on Forbes.com, about the cynical manipulation of science and the media by NRDC's activists; and Dr. Joe's The Right Chemistry, on the benefits of the maligned chemical BPA)