Could the EPA's New Chemical Regulations Actually Be Worse For Kids?

The Environmental Working Group has a lot to say about the bill drafted by the House to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

EWG points out that although the current draft is essentially the same as the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), there is an explicit protection for children in the older law—a tenfold safety margin for exposure to pesticides, to allow for the possibility of pre- and post-natal toxicity and uncertainties in the science—that is omitted from the version drafted by the House.

In plainer English, from EWG:

the requirement to protect children is too vague; in fact, it is far less specific than the protections children get under current pesticides law. This absence of specifics is dangerous, because it could be seen (by the courts, among others) as an intentional move by Congress to apply a weaker standard of protection to chemicals in children's toys than is applied to pesticides.

We're talking about chemicals that can reach kids from any angle: on their toys, in their bedding, through their bottles, in their food, etc. We don't even understand how modern chemicals affect fully-grown adults, much less infants and children, whose bodies are more susceptible and whose systems are still developing. Is it worth the risk?