Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiEPA Wants More Oversight on Chemicals
Tens of thousands of chemicals found in everyday items, from toys and cell phones to food containers and medical devices, would face high levels of federal scrutiny and control under a set of guidelines unveiled Tuesday in San Francisco by President Obama's top environmental official.
![[Water bottles display tags proclaiming their lack of bisphenol A, a controversial chemical used to harden plastics. (Photo: David McNew / Getty Images)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/epawantsmoreoversightonchem.jpg "epawantsmoreoversightonchem.jpg")
The effort to rewrite how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
evaluates and enforces the use of potentially harmful chemicals marks
the most significant overhaul of the nation's chemical policies since
the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
The move also coincides with growing public alarm over the risks posed by chemicals of all stripes - from pesticides in food to plastic coatings in baby bottles and flame retardants in clothing and pillows. Of particular concern are rising levels of toxics found in children and developing fetuses.
EPA chief's call
"Chemicals are ubiquitous in our environment and our bodies," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in an afternoon conference call with reporters. "Some chemicals may be risk free ... but the public is understandably anxious and confused. They're looking to the government for assurance that these chemicals have been assessed using the best available science. Current law doesn't allow us to give those assurances."
Jackson unveiled the EPA's chemical reform goals during a talk at San Francisco's Commonwealth Club on Tuesday evening.
While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulates chemicals in food, drugs and cosmetics, the EPA has jurisdiction over some 80,000 chemicals used in just about every other sector of the economy. Despite the huge and varied uses, however, current codes do not require manufacturers to collect or submit toxicity data to the EPA. In addition, legal roadblocks have meant the government has severely restricted or banned only five of those 80,000 chemicals, including dioxin, asbestos and hexavalent chromium.
Two-pronged plan
The administration's new plan is two-pronged. First, Jackson said her agency would work with Congress on legislation that would, among other things, call for chemicals to be evaluated based on health and safety risks and for manufacturers to submit toxicity data for existing and new chemicals. Legislation would also give the EPA authority to ban or restrict chemicals.
One bill expected to be reintroduced in the U.S. Senate this session would require chemicals used in baby bottles, children's toys and other products to be proved safe before they are put on store shelves.
In addition to legislative changes, the EPA will use existing regulatory power to launch new reviews of "priority" chemicals that the agency could ultimately restrict or ban. Among those are bisphenol A and phthalates. Bisphenol A, or BPA, is a plastic-hardening chemical. Phthalates, which add flexibility and durability, are used in everything from glues to medicine coatings to vinyl upholstery. Both are associated with disrupting hormone production.
Obsolete regulations
While the EPA's goals seem to cover very basic ground, environmental health advocates say the move is evidence that the nation's chemical regulations under the TSCA - sometimes pronounced "tosca" - are obsolete.
"The system we have now assumes that chemicals are innocent until proven guilty," said Jane Houlihan, senior vice president for research at the Environmental Working Group in Washington, D.C. "These reforms introduced today would flip that."
Despite the sweeping changes and added costs the administration's reforms could impose on the chemical industry, its main trade group, the American Chemistry Council, commended Jackson's announcement. Council president and chief executive Cal Dooley said Obama's guidelines hew closely to his group's recently released aims for reform.
"We have confidence we can modernize TSCA, which can give consumers greater confidence while also ensuring we'll have products at the forefront of innovation and provide high-paying jobs," Dooley told reporters.
Along with regaining consumers' trust in his industry, Dooley acknowledged that by supporting the EPA's measures, chemical manufacturers also hoped to avoid a "patchwork" effect created by layers of state and regional laws.
Surviving Washington
Some scientists, however, expressed concern that the EPA's effort could get bogged down in the Beltway morass.
"Just like climate change legislation and health care reform have not been easy to achieve, my guess is it won't be easy to achieve toxic chemical reform," said Arlene Blum, founder of the Green Science Policy Institute in Berkeley and a visiting scholar with UC Berkeley's department of chemistry. "Jackson will need a lot of support from the public, scientists and industry."
15 Comments so far
Show AllWhen the Chief Executive of the American Chemistry Council agrees with the proposed new measures, you know it is all smoke and mirrors.
Dooley, the CEO, is in agreement?
"Along with regaining consumers' trust in his industry, Dooley acknowledged that by supporting the EPA's measures, chemical manufacturers also hoped to avoid a "patchwork" effect created by layers of state and regional laws."
Obama's entire cabinet is set up to mollify the people into believing -- war is peace, etc.
Sounds like Obama and gang intend to make it easier for the chemical industry to "regain consumer's trust", not actually ban toxic chemicals, as other countries have done, with more hollow measures.
"The system we have now assumes that chemicals are innocent until proven guilty," said Jane Houlihan, senior vice president for research at the Environmental Working Group in Washington, D.C. "These reforms introduced today would flip that."
NO, the system does NOT 'assume' that the chemicals are safe, the system ACCEPTS what the manufacturer has told them, to wit, that the chemical is no more harmful than it's predicessor, which the EPA had approved. Even IF the EPA had the staff to test the chemicals, the 'long range' studies would be neglected.
There are a couple of sad truths about governmental agencies. One is that the 'heads' are political appointees, and thus, the mission statements change with each administration. Then there is the fact, that these heads hire "experts" for advice, which usually come from the field which the agency is trying to 'regulate'. The experts come and go through the proverbial revolving door, receiveing rewards for advice that promoted the industry. Finally, the few good career government employees that carry the brunt of the work, are rejected and punished whenever they try to bring to light fraud and abuse. (NO, the 2020 system does NOT work).
Agencies such as the EPA have come to believe that their mission is to "regulate the flow" of a commodity, not to 'prohibit' the commodity from the market. Find a way to bring the 'toxic level' below the "acceptable" levels and all the problems go away.
From this point it is not a large leap for the agency to forget that it is suppose to 'protect' the citizens of the country and start believing that is should be helping the industy to 'comply with regulations'. Once this has been established, the agency believe everything the industry rep tells them, and bends over backwards to lend a hand. These agencies are corrupted from the top down and won't be easily corrected.
The EPA most likley would be effective (as opposed to their current manifestation of corruption and ineffectiveness) if they made one simple 'change'.
Eliminate the Plutocratic Oligarchy that controls the 'controllers'----the Democracy will be free to represent the people, and 'protect the people'.
It really is that simple folks.
I agree that the Plutocratic Oligarchy is a toxin, but do you really think eliminating it the would be a SIMPLE TASK for the EPA?
Joe
Joe
The EPA is supposed to be a 'tool' for the people to 'protect themselves' from the 'PO', but the 'PO' has always maintained the control, and the EPA is simply another manifestation of the 'lack of true power'---otherwise there would be little or no pollution that 'gets by the EPA'; instead the USA has one of the most polluted natural environments of any nation on the planet---and it will get worse.
If enough people who call themselves 'freedom lovers' or 'Americans' finally decide that they are ready to divest themselves of the 'PO'; they can do it.
The word 'enough' is the key. Most Americans it seems are blind, and deaf, and unable to act; or are afraid to make their own mistakes so they give that right up along with their power, to others.
duplicate deleted
There is some truth in the first posts in this thread, but i believe we need to be realistic about this issue - we need to insist that tens of thousands of these unsatisfactorily tested and not-shown-to-be-safe chemicals be withdrawn from production, and we need to insist that the EPA - and society and the economy in general - be reorganized around the precautionary principle.
Why is it considered mere realism to accept corporate profiteering and consumerist passivity as the primary organizing principles of our society and economy?
It is not simply Promethean curiosity and boldness that drives the scientists on the corporate (and corporate-influenced) R&D teams that develop (and rush to market) all these new molecules. Their work - while in some ways undoubtedly very interesting and fulfilling - is driven by the permanent insatiable drive for corporate growth and profit.
When we put this corporate growth and profit in its proper place (let's be realistic now) and organize our society, our economy, and the fruits of our science around realistic principles of whole-systems design (among other fundamental organizing principles), there will still be plenty of interesting and fulfilling work for Promethean personalities. It just won't be driven (and neither will the totality of our society) by engorged corporate zombies that have turned on and enslaved their human creators.
Otherwise - realistically - we are doomed. And soon. We have entered the initial stages of shuddering cataclysmic breakdown not just of civilization, but of the Earth's ecology that underpins our human existence. Seriously addressing THAT is merely realism.
And i recognize that "Seriously addressing [the fact that] We have entered the initial stages of shuddering cataclysmic breakdown not just of civilization, but of the Earth's ecology that underpins our human existence" is a big, tough, dangerous job.
It involves facing down the "engorged corporate zombies that have turned on and enslaved their human creators." On a personal level, that can get you in serious trouble, unemployed, jailed, ridiculed, attacked, killed. Witness what happens at gatherings like the G-20 in Pittsburgh and extrapolate to a serious threat to capitalism as the primary organizing principle of society. Scary, dangerous business.
i just think, realistically, we have to face our various fears, including fear of what comes if we DO NOT transform our culture, and including fear of our own death which is inevitable whatever paths we choose while alive.
Chemicals are us!
It's a material world and materials consist of chemicals! They come in many forms: food, medicines, drugs, poisons. Another classification is organic (contain carbon) and inorganic (don't contain carbon).
Chemists are good at putting together new chemicals and have a long history of doing so. It all began about the time of the start of civilization.
Prometheus gave us fire, and mankind has been using it to change most everything since then.
God, grant all the chemical users safe passage.
Any chemical that acts in isolation of the interconnectedness of nature has the potential to disrupt some aspect of the physical entity. For a chemical to be truly safe , it must enrich it's specific target while simultaneously enriching the whole. Good luck on that one. The EPA can't do it's intended job because it spends most of it's time entertaining lobbyists from the chemical industry. The chemical industry could care less about harming the public because they know, that by the time something negative is proven about their chemicals they will have already raked in enough money from it's sale to pay off any impending law suits. The public is left to do their own monitoring . The safest attitude to have concerning chemicals is , "guilty until proven innocent."
good post sirios333.
Joe
80,000 chemicals. Testing them all is tricky. Testing for various harmful interactions involving 2 or MORE of these 80,000 is next to impossible. All we can do is to pick out a few of the most likely dangers. That or end unemployment by putting all unemployed to work for the EPA.
"Some scientists, however, expressed concern that the EPA's effort could get bogged down in the Beltway morass."
The EPA works for the government, the government has oversight and direction from Congress. It doesn't get to decide what it wants to do unilaterally.
Folks looking for a country that works like a dictatorship need to move to a different country. This kind of thinking is getting out of hand.
henry 8
The EPA was never intended to 'work for the government'---and it is the congress that is corrupt, not the EPA, which would be more like the 'nipple on the large federal breast that feeds the corrupt Plutocratic Oligarchy'.
The USA works exactly like a dictatorship already.
The fact that there never has been any true 'dictatorships'--i.e. one nation run by one person, is over looked by individuals/'folks' like yourself.
Hitler being an excellent example that the conservatives use often; but one man cannot hold force over so many: Hitler needed help from others---you know ---'followers/folks' like you and others who think conservatively.
To conserve means to maintain the status quo, so followers are always 'conservatives' and visa visa. In the case of the Nazis , Hitler had millions of 'voters' who followed his 'lead'---did not question, and always fooled themselves with the imagery of 'Democracy'. And it was a very well developed 'PO' with members as wealthy and influential as the ones in the USA---who survived the fall of the Nazis; just like they will survive the fall of America; in fact it is falling even at this very moment, just in 'slow motion'.
Unfortunately the only reason for this failure is that so many Americans are not willing to 'let their thinking get out of hand'......so they 'go along to get along'.
I think regulatory agencies should be charged with a mission, staffed with intelligent people, follow clear procedures and then have some immunity from the vicissitudes of the chumps in Congress. Imagine if the GAO had to say "please sir may I" before every audit? Imagine if District Attorneys had to get permission from City Councils?
Joe