Blog
More than Personal Choices - Chemical Reform Moves Forward
Claire Moss
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Looking back to the first Earth Day 40 years ago, we see the beginnings of widespread chemical reform. The Toxic Substances Control Act came out of this movement, but has turned out to be a disappointing first-step that now hasn’t been updated in over 30 years.
This initial legislation wasn’t comprehensive enough to protect us from new chemicals entering the market, or even the old ones we were already being exposed to everyday. Unfortunately, staying away from toxins is more than a personal choice - we need regulations in place to protect everyone. Health is a personal and universal issue.
Alison Rose Levy writes of the dual nature of personal health in To Detox your Body, Detox Our World. We do have some choices, but ultimately our exposure to harmful chemicals is dependent on chemical policy in our nation and around the world. Individually we just can’t know every chemical and keep them far enough away from our bodies. This means we have to work collectively and through established government processes.
Likewise, Daniel Rosenberg speaks about the personal impact of public chemical policy in his article, Toward a Non-Toxic Earth Day. He notes that we are collectively exposed to and impacted by harmful chemicals because of faulty chemical policy. This Earth Day, Daniel encourages us to celebrate the wonders of the earth, but continue the fight for reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). And, just in time for Earth Day, a bill has indeed emerged.
The Safe Chemicals Act of 2010, to reform TSCA, has been introduced in the Senate and a discussion draft is circulating in the House of Representatives. The intent is to give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a concrete way to identify harmful chemicals and the authority to regulate them.
As we all jump up and down with excitement and sort through the specifics, there are several flaws that must be addressed. The Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families Coalition outlines them.
As currently drafted, the legislation would:
- Allow hundreds of new chemicals to enter the market and be used in products for many years without first requiring them to be shown to be safe.
- Not provide clear authority for EPA to immediately restrict production and use of the most dangerous chemicals, even persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals, which already have been extensively studied and are restricted by governments around the world.
- Would not require EPA to adopt the National Academy of Sciences’ recommendations to incorporate the best and latest science when determining the safety of chemicals, although the Senate bill does call on EPA to consider those recommendations.
Reflecting these same concerns, a New York Times article from last week highlights the introduction of the SCA bill, and cautions about the remaining challenges. The holes in the current bill (mentioned above) are a huge concern for proponents of reform. Another issue lies in defining “acceptable risk,” so that there is adequate protection for consumers and the environment, while not putting an unnecessary burden on companies.
Industry is also concerned about the economic impact of reform - if the responsibility for testing is on their shoulders, this will increase their overhead costs. The American Chemistry Council, representing industry stakeholders, reacted to the bill with wary support. They like reform in theory, but want to ensure economic interests are considered.
Strong support is needed to pass bills in the House and Senate. Each of us needs to actively engage in the legislative process for chemical reform. What an amazing opportunity to impact the lives of our children and future generations! Have you contacted your members of Congress yet? Seriously, have you? It only takes a few minutes, and is a simple way to take part in the process.
Some regions will have a harder fight for passing reform than others. Stay tuned to find out if you are in one of these places. We will tell you exactly how to make an impact!
Image Courtesy Of Axel Bührmann / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
More comments:
Get Answers
View All
Read and Learn
It's the trusted guidebook for the Next Generation of Parenting "...that every single parent needs to read..."
PICK UP A COPY
Now In Paperback!
Archives by Month
What We Read
Posted by Rihana on 04/23/2010 at 10:56 AM
Making industrial chemicals safer is something we can all get behind. If we want safer chemicals and a safer environment then we must use nonanimal methods of testing.
Currently, many toxicity tests are based on experiments in animals and use methods that were developed as long ago as the 1930’s; they and are slow, inaccurate, open to uncertainty and manipulation, and do not adequately protect human health. These tests take anywhere from months to years, and tens of thousands to millions of dollars to perform. More importantly, the current testing paradigm has a poor record in predicting effects in humans and an even poorer record in leading to actual regulation of dangerous chemicals.
The blueprint for development and implementation for nonanimal testing is the National Research Council report, “Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy in 2007.” This report calls for a shift away from the use of animals in toxicity testing. The report also concludes that human cell- and computer-based approaches are the best way to protect human health because they allow us to understand more quickly and accurately the varied effects that chemicals can have on different groups of people. They are also more affordable and more humane.
These methods are ideal for assessing the real world scenarios such as mixtures of chemicals, which have proven problematic using animal-based test methods. And, they’re the only way we can assess all chemicals on the market.