Bisphenol A is a ubiquitous chemical used in plastics, food and beverage can linings, and other consumer products such as baby bottles, sippy cups and reusable water bottles. More than 90 percent of people tested in the United States have residues of BPA present in their urine, and BPA has also been found in amniotic fluid and breast milk. BPA is a hormone-disrupting chemical that mimics estrogen. Laboratory animal studies have linked exposure to BPA to reproductive harm and increased susceptibility of some kinds of cancer. Many people have begun to hear more about BPA in recent years because of the growing number of scientific studies that call into serious question its safety.
One aspect of the Post story that jumped out at me was the response of the chemical industry. Steven Hentges, the spokesman for the chemical manufacturing industry's main trade association, (called the American Chemistry Council) acknowledged that the study contained "interesting information" but opined that the study "has little relevance to average consumers who are exposed to trace levels of BPA."
In the first place, his statement suggests a distinction between "workers" and "consumers" as though a worker isn't also a consumer, or that a "consumer" shouldn't concern him or herself with either the well-being of "workers," or the implications of chemicals that harm workers to which the general public is also routinely exposed. A broader and more generous view of the relationship between public health and policies for controlling toxic chemicals would be that chemicals should be safe enough that neither consumers or workers are at risk of cancer, reproductive harm, or any other illness or chronic disease or condition as a result of exposure. The study reported in the Post was done on workers in factories in China, but BPA is also manufactured in the United States, and there are no workplace safety standards in place for exposure to BPA. Presumably those workers, whether in the U.S. or China, have some reason to be concerned about their health. The chemical industry has a responsibility to protect its workers, as well as the general public, from unsafe chemicals, and should not be shrugging off these types of study results as merely "interesting" or "irrelevant." Awareness of that responsibility is notably absent from Mr. Hentges' comment to the Post.
Second, the chemical industry is doing the public a serious disservice by dismissing out of hand the relevance of the recent study. The industry is well aware of other relevant facts about BPA, though it prefers not to discuss them: the population-wide exposure, and the continuous exposure (BPA is rapidly excreted and then replenished in our bodies by new exposures); the growing body of science documenting the potential health impacts of even low doses of some chemicals, as well as the greater understanding about the potential importance of the timing and duration of exposure during critical windows of development. Strong confirmation with human evidence that exposure to high doses of BPA can cause serious sexual dysfunction is most certainly "relevant" to the tens of millions of people who are exposed to BPA every day, who carry it in their bodies (along with dozens or hundreds of other toxic chemicals), and who want protection from unsafe chemicals and products that contain those chemicals. In a column published a few days before the Post story, Dr. Ted Schettler of the Science and Environmental Health Network had it just right when he said to Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times: "When you have 92 percent of the American population exposed to a chemical, this is not one where you want to be wrong." (Steve Hentges also makes an appearance in the Kristof column).
Speaking of which, how does Mr. Hentges know that the public is only exposed to "trace amounts" of BPA? And, even assuming his statement is correct, where are those trace amounts coming from? And why are they seemingly constant? The public would surely like to know, and has a right to know, all of the places BPA is currently used, which uses result in human exposure, and how much exposure. How much BPA is released into the air? Is it in our water supplies? Is it in our food? What food? How much? How often? How is it getting into babies? How is it getting into unborn babies? Who makes BPA and where do they make it and how much do they make? How much exposure occurs at the workplace? All of that information seems potentially "relevant" to consumers (and workers) who need it to decide for themselves whether or not they want to take a chance of being exposed to BPA, trace amounts or otherwise. Is the industry willing to share this information with the public? Why should the public have to wait for a new law to be written, or for EPA to issue a rulemaking (which can take months or years) to get the information? If the chemical industry is so certain about its safety, why isn't it being up front with everything it knows about BPA, as opposed to patronizing the public with statements about what information is relevant?
Mr. Hentges is nearly as ubiquitous as BPA itself; and it seems as though he can be found in more than 90 percent of the stories about the chemical, always resolutely defending its safety. The problem isn't Mr. Hentges, but his message, which severely undercuts the credibility of an industry that is struggling to rebrand itself as committed to serious reform of our country's law for ensuring the safety of chemicals used in commerce, and to protecting the public from unsafe chemicals. See for example the industry's misleading website, under the (dis)guise of the "Coalition for Chemical Safety." Gee, that picture of the worker's gloves and hard hat is a nice touch! My colleague Richard Denison of EDF did a nice dissection of the industry's website in his excellent blog which you can read here.
NRDC is part of the Safer Chemicals Health Families campaign that is working for meaningful reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Our platform calls for expanding the public right to know about the health impacts of chemicals, as well as where they are used and how people are exposed. It also calls for immediate action to reduce or eliminate exposure to the worst chemicals. The chemical industry also claims to support right to know, and the need to protect the public from unsafe chemicals. But when it comes to BPA and other chemicals, whether it is formaldehyde, lead, asbestos, or phthalates, the industry is steadfast in its resistance to acknowledging potential harm, or the need to reduce (or eliminate) human exposures.
Given its track record, and its current posture as reflected in the Post story, why should people trust the chemical industry?
]]>EPA and the Administration have taken another step in the direction of making reform of our nation's premier law for managing the safety of chemicals one of its top environmental priorities. That's a good thing, because the law has barely worked over the 33 years since it was enacted (some characterize TSCA as "badly broken" while others are more definitive, calling it a total failure).
Principles of this kind are by nature general and EPA did not commit itself to any particular legislative language or specific approach for altering TSCA in what it announced today. However, the written Principles themselves, and the accompanying comments made by Administrator Jackson make clear that some key elements need to be included in any approach that will meet with the Administration's approval. These include:
These are some of the key elements outlined in the Administration's Principles that correspond well with the platform articulated by NRDC and its coalition partners in the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families campaign.
In the classic reggae duet "Right Track," Hopeton Lewis and Phyllis Dillon, the Queen of Jamaican Soul, sing "if you want to be on the right track, you've got to move along with me. You'll never, never be on the right track, until you move along with me."
While EPA's Principles don't answer every question, or address every concern, they suggest that EPA and the Obama Administration are moving along the right track to support strong and meaningful TSCA reform legislation.
In the next few weeks the effort to reauthorize and thoroughly reform TSCA will begin in earnest when legislation is introduced in Congress by Senators Frank Lautenberg and Barbara Boxer, and Congressmen Bobby Rush and Henry Waxman. It will be the job of NRDC, the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families campaign, and so many other health, environment, family, labor, religious and business-based organizations, as well as millions of American's to ensure that the Administration and Congress remain on the right track and enact a law that finally provides real protection for all Americans from unsafe chemicals.
]]>
The memo should not be a one day story, both because its contents are equal parts hilarious and horrifying, and because it provides a roadmap for how the chemical manufacturers, and at least some companies that use chemicals of questionable safety - like BPA -- in their products, are likely to respond to a broader federal effort to fix the country's current failed system for assessing the safety and regulating the use of chemicals everyday products.
BPA is used to make a host of consumer products, including plastic baby bottles, and is used in the lining of food, beverage and infant formula containers. Research shows that people are exposed to BPA by drinking from polycarbonate bottles and consuming food from containers made using BPA, like the linings of soup cans. The Centers for Disease Control found that the majority of Americans carry residues of BPA in their bodies (it was detected in more than 90% of those tested by CDC). Low-levels of Bisphenol A exposure have been associated with cancer of reproductive organs, abnormal brain development, and abnormalities in fat metabolism in animal studies. Recent studies in humans are finding evidence of similar harm. My NRDC colleague Dr. Sarah Janssen has written extensively about BPA. You can find her posts on that and other chemicals of concern, including phthalates and flame retardants here.
BPA ought to be regulated - and exposure to it curtailed -- by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) -- the law that regulates the use of industrial chemicals. Unfortunately, the law, enacted in 1976 and never updated since, has proven to be extremely weak, and is generally considered the greatest failure of the major environmental laws.
A combination of problems with the statute itself, and the way it was interpreted in a particular court case, have drastically limited the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to obtain information from companies - and provide the information to the public -- about the potential environmental and health effects of the chemicals they produce, or limit the amount of human exposure to such chemicals, by regulating their use in commerce.
Perhaps the best example of how tightly EPA's hands are tied when it comes to regulating industrial chemicals is its unsuccessful effort to ban most uses of asbestos, one of the deadliest chemicals currently known. EPA spent ten years developing a record on the dangers of asbestos. But EPA's regulation was thrown out in 1991 by a conservative federal court on the grounds that the agency hadn't met its burden under TSCA to show that the health risks posed by asbestos were "unreasonable" and had not shown that the ban on most uses was the approach that would be least burdensome to industry. That decision essentially rendered TSCA inoperative.
Of course, asbestos is just one chemical. When TSCA was enacted in 1976, there were approximately 62,000 chemicals already in use in commerce, and the law "grandfathered-in" those chemicals, meaning that they were not required to undergo any assessment for their environmental and health impacts by EPA. To date, only about 200 of those 62,000 chemicals have undergone a complete assessment of their impacts. Since TSCA's passage, roughly 22,000 more chemicals have been approved for use by EPA. While these new chemicals have undergone some amount of review, the law's provisions severely limit the agency's authority to obtain sufficient information to fully assess the potential impacts of a substance. For an excellent and detailed analysis of the problems with how "new chemicals" are regulated under TSCA, read the blog posts of EDF's Richard Denison which you can start here.
So, if you, like most people, assume that the chemicals that are in many of the products you buy, including household cleaners, furniture, toys, clothes, building materials, food packaging and containers, children's products etc. have been thoroughly vetted for safety before being allowed on the market, and they all check-out, think again. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has written in detail about the many problems with the current system for regulating toxic chemicals, and recently rated it as a "high priority" for reform (along with the system for regulating our financial markets!).
On the positive side, legislation to reform the Toxics Substances Control Act has been introduced in previous Congresses, and the reform effort is widely considered in Washington DC to be the next major environmental issue behind Climate Change that will be the focus of attention in Congress. A revised version of the reform legislation is expected to be introduced sometime this summer by its Senate and House champions, Senators Frank Lautenberg (NJ) and Barbara Boxer (CA) and Representatives Henry Waxman (CA) and Bobby Rush (IL). The legislation is similar in its approach to suggestions made by the GAO in its previous reports on the need for TSCA reform. Effective chemical reform legislation would:
As the momentum builds for reforming our system to ensure safer chemicals and healthy families, the chemical manufacturers industry has been adjusting its public rhetoric to appear more amenable to strengthening the current system. Publicly, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the trade association for some of the nation's largest chemical companies (formerly known as the Chemical Manufacturers Association), has offered general endorsement of the concept of TSCA reform (as opposed to a few short years ago when a representative for the ACC testified before Congress about how well TSCA was working and argued that no changes were needed).
But the recent industry memo outlining the strategy discussion on how to address the public concern about the potential safety issues raised by BPA, and the public desire to switch to use of safe (or at least safer) chemicals from less safe ones, demonstrates that behind closed doors key industry trade associations - including the ACC, the Grocery Manufacturers of America, and the North American Metal Packaging Alliance and even individual companies like Coca-Cola, Del Monte, and ALCOA, are gearing up for a costly (perhaps in ways they didn't anticipate) media campaign to thwart chemical policy reform, and convince the public that it has to choose between exposure to (and consumption of) unsafe chemicals or loss of access to affordable necessities like infant formula and baby food.
While the memo on this meeting is specific to Bisphenol A, it is indicative of the approach the industry is likely to take in response to broader policy proposals: scare tactics, cynical and divisive targeting of "minorities (Hispanic and African American) and poor," exaggerated claims about the costs of regulation and the "benefits" or "necessity" of continuing to use and be exposed to unsafe chemicals, and dismissing or ignoring legitimate science-based concerns about the risks posed by specific chemicals. The memo speaks for itself, and I'm hesitant to highlight particular passages since its cumulative impact as a whole is even greater, but here are a few key points that jumped out at me:
1. The memo states: "Attendees suggested using fear tactics (e.g. 'Do you want to have access to baby food anymore?')."
Industry and their allies love to suggest that environmental and public health groups are exaggerating concerns to scare the public (usually this is accompanied by the suggestion that these non-profit groups are getting rich by virtue of scaring people). So there is some irony that these industry groups are literally discussing use of "fear tactics ...to dissuade people from choosing BPA-free packaging." There is no indication in the memo that anyone spoke out against using such tactics, or that an agreement was reached at the meeting to refrain from doing so.
2. The memo notes that members "have already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars" on "traditional media outreach" (probably to convince people that BPA is safe and should not be subject to regulation) and are "guesstimating" that they will need to spend another $500,000 "for the entire project."
Presumably these costs will be passed-on to consumers of their products via higher prices. I guesstimate that most people would rather pay a few cents extra for a safer product that doesn't contain (and leach) one or more chemicals that could lead to cancer, infertility, or developmental defects anywhere from thirty years to a generation down the road, rather than for a media campaign designed to convince the public of the "benefits" of being exposed to unsafe chemicals.
3. According to the memo: "The committee doubts obtaining a scientific spokesperson is attainable" [and therefore] "their 'holy grail' spokesperson would be a 'pregnant young mother who would be willing to speak around the country about the benefits of BPA.'"
Considering that virtually every industry infamous for poisoning the public, including the tobacco industry, can usually find at least one scientist willing to stand up in defense of the deadly product, it is remarkable that the BPA industry doubts they can find such a spokesperson. Maybe they could just hire someone to pretend to be a credible scientist?
Re the "holy grail" of a pregnant mom willing to tour the country and campaign on behalf of the benefits of BPA, it is unclear if they will be looking specifically for a pregnant young mother whose body, breast milk and fetal cord blood currently contains BPA to speak about its benefits. That may be easier though than finding a pregnant woman without evidence of exposure.
4. The memo suggests that, at least for the purposes of this meeting, those in attendance were not interested in evidence that BPA is unsafe, or looking for safer alternatives, only in convincing legislators and the general public that the risks are a worthwhile tradeoff and that, above all, BPA should not be avoided at all costs.
See for example the description of the discussion of Proposition 65 in California, "which requires the Governor to publish a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity." The memo suggests that those attending the meeting assume that BPA will be listed under Prop 65, and there was no discussion or debate over the fact that BPA might be listed as a known carcinogen or reproductive toxin. Instead, the attendees discussed forming a coalition to submit comments to the state regarding "the benefits of BPA."
5. According to the memo: "Eventually, the committee concluded before deciding on the tactics to spread their messages, they need to develop the messages. The committees plan to fund a joint survey and message testing-what new messages they need to sell-before implementing a website and creating materials. Another task group will be implemented to finalize how to develop messages and aggressively use electronic media to deliver those messages."
So, head's up everybody, and especially if you are among the "young mothers ages 21-35 and students" or "minorities (Hispanic and African American) and poor" that are, according to the memo, the special target demographics of the BPA industry's campaign: if you pick-up the phone and are invited to complete a survey, or participate in a focus group, about the chemical Bisphenol-A, you may be witnessing the industry's "message testing" and "grassroots outreach" strategy in action. If you are asked to "vote" on the "benefits" of BPA versus the health risks, I urge you to vote "no" for more exposure to unsafe chemicals, and "yes" for a system that gives us safer chemicals.
Of course, we know that not all companies that produce or use chemicals, or that are members of the American Chemistry Council or the North American Metal Packaging Alliance (NAMPA) or the Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA), endorse this kind of approach to addressing the failure of our federal laws to protect the public from unsafe chemicals. As with any environmental or public health issue, there are industry leaders and laggards. One recent example of a leader is SC Johnson, a company that responded to concerns raised by NRDC and others about the use of phthalates in their air freshener products, and have stepped out in front of other companies in their voluntary disclosure of the ingredients used in their products. NRDC's President Frances Beinecke praised SC Johnson's leadership in a blog post you can read here. We look forward to working with those companies that are serious about establishing a system that ensures safer chemicals are used, and unsafe chemicals are replaced, and the public has complete information on the health and environmental effects of chemicals, and which chemicals are contained in specific products.
But for the SC Johnsons out there in the ACC, NAMPA, GMA, Consumer Specialty Products Association and other key trade associations to be emboldened to break from the lowest common denominator positions of their colleagues (and this memo if nothing else illustrates a lowest common denominator way of thinking), they not only need positive reinforcement for the steps that they take, but companies caught mulling strategies for scaring or bamboozling young mothers and minority communities need some negative feedback as well. And member companies of these trade associations need to make clear whether they support or oppose the kinds of tactics being discussed.
The Environmental Working Group has launched an action alert for people to express their displeasure with Coca-Cola and Del Monte, two of the named companies that attended the BPA meeting. What about the other companies that belong to these trade associations? You can find the lists of the companies belonging to these trade associations here, here, and here.
Meanwhile, investigations into the meeting described in the memo, and industry's other BPA-related efforts have been initiated at the federal level by Congressmen Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak (they chair the House Energy and Commerce Committee and that committee's Investigation and Oversight Subcommittee respectively) and at the state level by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. Last week, Rep. Waxman's Committee reported a food safety bill including provisions by Rep. Ed Markey that will require FDA to determine by the end of this year whether BPA is safe for use in food and beverage containers and, if not, what actions FDA intends to take to protect the public from exposures to the chemical.
People should expect that new scientific studies will be released, showing both greater public exposure to BPA than previously estimated, and further validating concern about the chemical's safety. Eventually, policies at the federal and state level will be driven to provide greater protection for the public's health, not only from BPA, but from thousands of other chemicals that are permitted for use despite the lack of information on their safety. How soon that happens, and how strong the protections that are adopted will be depends in part on what industry groups, businesses and their trade associations do to either facilitate or block meaningful reform of the nation's chemical policies.
The primary interest of most of these companies is selling their products - canned food, cleaning supplies, personal care products, etc. -- to the public. Nothing wrong with that per se, but it would be good to know how far they are willing to go to ensure that a potentially unsafe chemical continues to be used in their products, or prevent reforms that will remove unsafe chemicals from the market, and provide the public with greater information about the health and environmental safety of chemicals they use and are exposed to every day. Do they endorse the use of "fear tactics" to maintain market share for Bisphenol A? What about other chemicals of concern? How much are they willing to spend, and how strongly do they support the efforts of their trade association to mislead the public (including members of Congress) and prevent meaningful chemical policy reform?
More and more, customers will be asking companies - manufacturers and retailers - these kinds of questions. It will be interesting to see what kind of response they get; and whether their words in public will match the things they are saying in private. The BPA memo is a disturbing early sign that some very important industry interests are going to be aligned against the public in this critically important effort to reform how this country evaluates the safety of chemicals, and protects people from those that are unsafe. That said, the public's voice, when unified, can be loud and powerful, even in the halls of Congress. Protecting ourselves, our families, and future generations from exposure to persistent, toxic, and unsafe chemicals seems like something worth speaking up for. Loud and clear.
]]>The Bush administration's eight years have featured both persistent efforts to weaken existing protections from exposure to toxic chemicals, including curtailing the public's right to know about chemical releases from industrial facilities; and steadfast opposition to taking meaningful steps to address current or emerging concerns related to chemical exposure. The coming months will require a dual effort to restore protections recently lost, and move forward with badly needed initiatives to address our nation's chemical policy.
Today a number of environmental groups including NRDC released a report with recommendations for the next administration on priority issues that merit serious attention. In the area of health and toxics, the report outlines a number of steps that need to be taken, both to reverse Bush Administration policies, and to affirmatively address current and emerging issues. Denying reality, ignoring the future, standing in the way of addressing serious threats to public health, these have been the hallmarks of the Administration's approach to chemical policy over the past eight years. Here are a few examples:
Throughout the 1990s, the mantra of polluters and their supporters in Congress and conservative think-tanks was the need for "sound science" to guide regulatory decisions. Over the past eight years, we have seen repeatedly that "sound science" is a euphemism for censored science, ignored science, industry-funded science, and political interference with science. A perfect example is the Bush Administration's recent changes to the EPA process for assessing the health hazards posed by toxic chemicals. While it has an arcane name - the Integrated Risk Information System, or "IRIS" - it is a cornerstone program that guides the federal government, as well as many state and foreign governments, in setting health standards for exposure to toxic chemicals in our air and water, and for setting cleanup levels at toxic waste sites. Earlier this year, the Bush Administration revised the IRIS process to provide multiple opportunities for the most polluting federal agencies, including the Departments of Defense and Energy, as well as the White House via the Office of Management and Budget, to interfere with EPA's scientists tasked with determining the levels at which toxic chemicals pose a health hazard. In keeping with the Administration's preferred practice of reducing the public's right to know about health risks of chemicals, as well as political decision-making, the new policy ensures the "advice" and "consultation" EPA receives from agencies with an interest in weak health standards remain behind closed doors, and shielded from public scrutiny. My colleague Dr. Jennifer Sass has written extensively on this subject on her excellent blog. Reversing the Bush Administration's changes to the IRIS program, and taking additional steps to ensure the program's transparency and integrity, should be a top priority for the next EPA administrator.
Many people remember the human catastrophe that occurred in Bhopal, India in 1984, when a cloud of methyl isocyanate leaked from a chemical plant, killing thousands of people and permanently injurying thousands more. Those who are not familiar with what happened in Bhopal should take some time to learn about it. For one thing, people in Bhopal are still suffering from the harm caused by that toxic cloud almost twenty-five years ago. For another, it was the impetus for a number of environmental policies adopted in this country in its aftermath, and is still an important touchstone for guiding us on what kinds of policies are needed to increase public protection, whether from chemical accidents, or the potentially deadly results of a terrorist attack on a facility storing hazardous chemicals.
The risks to the public posed by the accidental release of certain toxic chemicals are not just a concern for people in faraway lands. Thousands of facilities across the country store or use chemicals that could be extremely harmful to the public if released.
Particularly since 9/11, the potential for a terrorist attack on a chemical facility has loomed large in the concerns of many national security experts. Yet since 9/11 the Bush Administration has repeatedly sided with the oil and chemical industries to block strong legislation to ensure that the nation's chemical facilities were taking the necessary steps to ensure safety to the greatest extent possible. Moreover, the Administration attempted to block states from adopting stronger protections than the weak measures the Administration worked out with industry. The Bush-industry approach is set to expire in 2009, and adoption of strong chemical security measures to protect the public from the deadly effects of a terrorist attack on our chemical facilities must be a top priority for the Department of Homeland Security and the Environmental Protection Agency.
In the wake of the Bhopal tragedy, Congress enacted the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA), which contained several provisions to help emergency responders and local officials to be informed and prepared about the potential risks posed by toxic chemicals stored on-site at the nation's chemical facilities. The law also created the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) which established the public's right to know about toxic chemicals that are being stored and released in their communities. This simple law, which doesn't set standards or control emissions, but ensures people have information about what is going on at the chemical facilities in their communities, has been extremely effective in assisting local communities in getting companies to reduce their chemical releases. Few companies want to be at the top of a list of local or national emitters of toxic chemicals to our air, water or land. Since its creation, the principle of the public's right to know about toxic chemical releases (and other chemical-related matters) has been accepted across a broad political spectrum, and the Toxics Release Inventory has been an essential part of the toolbox for many community activists seeking to protect their families from exposure to dangerous chemicals.
Unfortunately, the principle of the public's right to know, and the great success of the TRI program were not at all respected by the Bush Administration or its political appointees at EPA. In 2006, EPA weakened the TRI program by raising the amount of chemicals a facility must release before it is required to provide detailed reporting to the public. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), more than 3,500 facilities across the country were absolved of their previous reporting requirements by EPA's rule change. What's more, opposition to the proposal was overwhelming. OMB Watch reviewed the public comments and determined that EPA received 122,386 (99.97%) of comments strongly opposed to the proposed changes, and only 34 (00.03%) comments expressing some degree of support for the changes. The House of Representatives -- led at the time by Dennis Hastert and Tom Delay - voted to prevent EPA from spending any funds to finalize their plan to weaken the reporting requirements (because the spending restriction was part of an appropriations bill that never passed Congress, it never took effect and EPA finalized the rule). The weakening of the TRI program was a perfect illustration of the contempt EPA's current political leaders hold for the public and the right to know principle. It should be reversed immediately.
The scientific evidence of potential harms caused by endocrine disrupting chemicals has increased dramatically over the past eight years. But the Food and Drug Administration continues to side with the chemical industry (and rely upon industry-funded studies) to reaffirm the safety of one of these chemicals, Bisphenol A (or BPA), in our food supply. BPA is used as a liner in many food containers, a use for which it was approved in the 1960s. It has now been shown in dozens of scientific studies to be associated with a range of health effects at levels at which human exposure is common. A significant source of that exposure is almost certainly the leaching from food packaging. My colleague Dr. Sarah Janssen has written several excellent posts about the health concerns raised by BPA and other endocrine disrupting chemicals (including phthalates) and the failure of FDA and other agencies to forthrightly address those concerns. I encourage you to read them. At this time, the FDA is widely recognized as a damaged and demoralized agency. Restoring the agency to the path of protecting the public, including from exposure to dangerous chemicals in food - presumably part of its core mission - must be a priority for the next Administration.
Although it has yet to gain widespread public attention, the rapid development of nano-technology, (the use of microscopic particles that have unique properties and a host of potential uses - many of them beneficial) poses serious challenges for addressing potential threats to public (and especially worker) health and the environment. The Administration's anti-protection ideology has led to an irresponsible policy of inaction that is not sustainable if the many promises of nanotechnology are to be realized. My NRDC colleague Dr. Jennifer Sass, and Richard Denison of EDF, have written about this issue extensively, and the folks at the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies have issued a series of excellent reports on the topic. For people who want to save the planet, and do it in a way that also protects the people, working to ensure that nanotechnologies are safe is critical.
Many of the challenges posed by how to address the potential risks of some types or uses of nanotechnologies are subsets of the larger question how to address the potential risks posed by the tens of thousands of chemicals currently authorized for use in today's marketplace, and the new chemicals that enter the stream of commerce each year. Few outside of the chemical industry will argue that the current system is working well and doesn't need a major overhaul. In fact, Europe fully recognized this reality and has now begun implementing a new EU-wide chemicals policy known as REACH which stands for Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemical Substances. Among the most fundamental principles of REACH is that, rather than presuming that chemicals are safe, until regulators with weak authority and inadequate resources can prove otherwise, the burden should be on chemical producers and distributors to prove that chemicals to be used in the stream of commerce are safe, or their use - with some exceptions - should be restricted or banned altogether.
That change in thinking is needed here in the United States, where our own toxics law, the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA) has foundered for years. Let's put it this way, when a law designed to protect the public from dangerous chemicals is so onerous and so restrictive of EPA's authority that the agency can't ban the use of asbestos in most products, a new approach is necessary. REACH may provide some guidance for how Congress and the next Administration approach the reform of TSCA.
I've only discussed a few of the health priorities discussed in today's report. I urge those of you who are interested in the issue of toxic chemicals, environmental and public health, and policy (including politics) to take a look at the full list, get up to speed on the issues that interest you most, and get involved. There is plenty of work that needs to be done (and there will be plenty of opposition from the oil and chemical industries, as well as others). The more people who add their voices and advocacy skills to the efforts to protect the public; ensure safe products, rely upon real science-based decisions, and defend the public's right to know, the better for all of us.
The chemical industry spends a great deal of money on advertising to remind the public how vital chemicals are to our modern society. They would like to frame the argument as one in which you are either for chemicals and their beneficial contribution to society, or you are opposed to all chemicals or plastics, and therefore can't be taken seriously if your concern is limited to unsafe chemicals in kids' toys and baby formula; or rocket fuel, solvents, or fuel additives in our drinking water; or formaldehyde in building supplies; or pesticides blowing into school yards; or endocrine disrupters and nanoparticles in our bodies. It is a false choice that won't fool the public, and hopefully won't cow Congress or the next Administration as they grapple with the enormous challenges of developing policies and ensuring protections for our food, water, and products for the coming decades.
The new Administration and the new Congress cannot be counted on to take the steps necessary to address the threats to public health and the environment posed by toxic chemicals without the strong encouragement of the public, their constituents. As bad as the Bush administration has been - and it has been terrible in virtually area of toxic chemicals policy - the next Administration cannot simply rest on being "better than Bush." The standard for judging the next Administration (and future administration's) must be - have they taken the necessary actions to protect the public and the environment from dangerous chemicals. Now is a time for anticipation and optimism, but reality will intrude soon enough, and that's when the real work begins.
The Green Group report being released today is not a comprehensive account of the agencies that need to be reformed (or rescued) or the policies that need to be reversed or the protections that need to be adopted. Two important agencies that are not covered in the report, but deserve attention and support from the new Administration and Congress, are the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the U.S. Chemical Safety Board. If this turns out to be more than a one-time venture into the world of blogging, I'll discuss these two agencies, and track the progress of issues discussed here, and other priorities in today's report, in future posts.
]]>