Is This New Reform a Toxic Waste?
It may take over three decades to regulate consumer chemicals that we already know are deadly.
There should've been an overhaul in how we regulate toxic chemicals years ago. Like when the 2010 President's Cancer Panel report concluded that babies are now born "pre-polluted." Or when it came to light that a common flame retardant used in household items actually causes cancer.
Finally, our infamously ineffective Congress has passed a landmark toxic chemical reform.
Or did it only happen on paper?
The original 1976 law on toxic chemicals -- which covered everything except food, drugs, and pesticides -- was written with the help of the chemical industry. It was designed to be weak.
And it was.
In fact, the law often served to prevent the government from testing new chemicals for safety. It only gave authorities a 90-day window to run toxicity tests before companies could take the new substances to market.
The end result? In the four decades the law was in effect, the EPA only succeeded in regulating five harmful chemicals before they got to the public. Once a chemical made it to market, it was generally too late.
Under the new law, the government now has a backlog of 90 high-priority chemicals to investigate, including obvious culprits like arsenic and asbestos that should've been dealt with years ago.
That's as good a place as any to start. But the Environmental Working Group estimates that it could take 35 years to perform those assessments and implement new regulations.
Could that be exactly what the industry groups who helped draft the new legislation want?
What on earth would make chemical companies ask for new regulations, you might wonder? After all, if they're worried about the toxicity of their own product, they don't need a law to do the right thing. They can just take it off the market. So what's in it for them?
Consumer confidence, that's what.
If the public hears new regulations have been passed, they're more likely to trust that the government is doing its job to regulate new chemicals on the market. That means less public pressure for "retailer bans, consumer boycotts, and state regulations," Bloomberg reports.
Aha.
Furthermore, the new law actually prevents states from passing new regulations that are stricter than federal rules. The only silver lining, thankfully, is that existing state-level rules get to stay in place.
Is this new law an example of the value of compromise? An inspiring tale about the power of consumer pressure? Or is it a depressing confirmation that nothing gets done in Washington unless the fox is invited into the henhouse?
I can't help but agree with Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. The chemical watchdog group applauded the legislation while telling states, consumers, and retailers to stay vigilant, and stay involved.
We'll know whether we just achieved a huge victory -- or got hoodwinked -- when we see if the government can finally protect us from asbestos, arsenic, and other toxic chemicals that we shouldn't even have to talk about in 2016.
Ultimately, the proof will be in the pudding -- and all of the other everyday products that contain the chemicals under review.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
There should've been an overhaul in how we regulate toxic chemicals years ago. Like when the 2010 President's Cancer Panel report concluded that babies are now born "pre-polluted." Or when it came to light that a common flame retardant used in household items actually causes cancer.
Finally, our infamously ineffective Congress has passed a landmark toxic chemical reform.
Or did it only happen on paper?
The original 1976 law on toxic chemicals -- which covered everything except food, drugs, and pesticides -- was written with the help of the chemical industry. It was designed to be weak.
And it was.
In fact, the law often served to prevent the government from testing new chemicals for safety. It only gave authorities a 90-day window to run toxicity tests before companies could take the new substances to market.
The end result? In the four decades the law was in effect, the EPA only succeeded in regulating five harmful chemicals before they got to the public. Once a chemical made it to market, it was generally too late.
Under the new law, the government now has a backlog of 90 high-priority chemicals to investigate, including obvious culprits like arsenic and asbestos that should've been dealt with years ago.
That's as good a place as any to start. But the Environmental Working Group estimates that it could take 35 years to perform those assessments and implement new regulations.
Could that be exactly what the industry groups who helped draft the new legislation want?
What on earth would make chemical companies ask for new regulations, you might wonder? After all, if they're worried about the toxicity of their own product, they don't need a law to do the right thing. They can just take it off the market. So what's in it for them?
Consumer confidence, that's what.
If the public hears new regulations have been passed, they're more likely to trust that the government is doing its job to regulate new chemicals on the market. That means less public pressure for "retailer bans, consumer boycotts, and state regulations," Bloomberg reports.
Aha.
Furthermore, the new law actually prevents states from passing new regulations that are stricter than federal rules. The only silver lining, thankfully, is that existing state-level rules get to stay in place.
Is this new law an example of the value of compromise? An inspiring tale about the power of consumer pressure? Or is it a depressing confirmation that nothing gets done in Washington unless the fox is invited into the henhouse?
I can't help but agree with Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. The chemical watchdog group applauded the legislation while telling states, consumers, and retailers to stay vigilant, and stay involved.
We'll know whether we just achieved a huge victory -- or got hoodwinked -- when we see if the government can finally protect us from asbestos, arsenic, and other toxic chemicals that we shouldn't even have to talk about in 2016.
Ultimately, the proof will be in the pudding -- and all of the other everyday products that contain the chemicals under review.
There should've been an overhaul in how we regulate toxic chemicals years ago. Like when the 2010 President's Cancer Panel report concluded that babies are now born "pre-polluted." Or when it came to light that a common flame retardant used in household items actually causes cancer.
Finally, our infamously ineffective Congress has passed a landmark toxic chemical reform.
Or did it only happen on paper?
The original 1976 law on toxic chemicals -- which covered everything except food, drugs, and pesticides -- was written with the help of the chemical industry. It was designed to be weak.
And it was.
In fact, the law often served to prevent the government from testing new chemicals for safety. It only gave authorities a 90-day window to run toxicity tests before companies could take the new substances to market.
The end result? In the four decades the law was in effect, the EPA only succeeded in regulating five harmful chemicals before they got to the public. Once a chemical made it to market, it was generally too late.
Under the new law, the government now has a backlog of 90 high-priority chemicals to investigate, including obvious culprits like arsenic and asbestos that should've been dealt with years ago.
That's as good a place as any to start. But the Environmental Working Group estimates that it could take 35 years to perform those assessments and implement new regulations.
Could that be exactly what the industry groups who helped draft the new legislation want?
What on earth would make chemical companies ask for new regulations, you might wonder? After all, if they're worried about the toxicity of their own product, they don't need a law to do the right thing. They can just take it off the market. So what's in it for them?
Consumer confidence, that's what.
If the public hears new regulations have been passed, they're more likely to trust that the government is doing its job to regulate new chemicals on the market. That means less public pressure for "retailer bans, consumer boycotts, and state regulations," Bloomberg reports.
Aha.
Furthermore, the new law actually prevents states from passing new regulations that are stricter than federal rules. The only silver lining, thankfully, is that existing state-level rules get to stay in place.
Is this new law an example of the value of compromise? An inspiring tale about the power of consumer pressure? Or is it a depressing confirmation that nothing gets done in Washington unless the fox is invited into the henhouse?
I can't help but agree with Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. The chemical watchdog group applauded the legislation while telling states, consumers, and retailers to stay vigilant, and stay involved.
We'll know whether we just achieved a huge victory -- or got hoodwinked -- when we see if the government can finally protect us from asbestos, arsenic, and other toxic chemicals that we shouldn't even have to talk about in 2016.
Ultimately, the proof will be in the pudding -- and all of the other everyday products that contain the chemicals under review.