Experts guesstimate that about 50,000 chemicals are used in U.S. consumer products and industrial processes. Why the uncertainty? The 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act does not require chemicals to be registered or proven safe before use. Because the Environmental Protection Agency must show, after the fact, that a substance is dangerous, it has managed to require testing of only about 300 substances that have been in circulation for decades. It has restricted applications of five.
The House Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010 and the Senate Safe Chemicals Act of 2010 would require manufacturers to prove that existing and new chemicals meet specific safety criteria. Stricter scrutiny in Europe and Canada suggests that “10 to 30 percent of U.S. chemicals would need some additional level of control,” says Richard Denison, a molecular biochemist at the Environmental Defense Fund. That would be 5,000 to 15,000 chemicals, not five.
See what we're tweeting about
8 Comments
Add CommentI totally agree with the article but the figures might be underestimate. Would it be possible for any health or environment organizations carry out a research for a world wide utilization of the chemicals? I also like to see an article on the accurate measurement of the chemicals appearing in SA. There are quite a number of experts in chemical metrology at NIST or even at the BIPM in Paris which I believe would provide valuable information on this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTypical liberally biased scientists...wanting to regulate corporations and lead us straight into another fascist state. Do you know how much this will cost corporations? The costs of these tests will be passed on to the consumers, you know. That's not to say they aren't now..we all pay the price with higher levels of birth defects and potentially shortened life spans, but at least everything's cheaper!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst we stopped letting kids work dangerous jobs, then we started having to provide safe work environments. NOW, we have to make things safe for people who might not actually be one of our shareholders! It's insanity, pure and simple! Enough regulations!!
This message approved by Faux News.
I'd also guess that those tens of thousands of untested chemicals may (iteratively) interact with other chemicals in the environment to eventually produce dangerous substances.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, while the article states:
"The House Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010 and the Senate Safe Chemicals Act of 2010 would require manufacturers to prove that existing and new chemicals meet specific safety criteria. Stricter scrutiny in Europe and Canada suggests that “10 to 30 percent of U.S. chemicals would need some additional level of control,” says Richard Denison..."
- seems to indicate that manufacturers would be immediately required to prove that 50,000 chemicals are safe when, based on Canadian and European testing, no more than 15,000 might be considered to be somewhat unsafe.
Since the EPA couldn't test all chemicals our manufacturers must now be burdened with testing? I'm very concerned about the effects of chemicals in the environment, but as stated this legislation seems to completely disable all industries and businesses in the U.S., not to mention perhaps eliminating the products you may be using in your kitchen.
There was no mention here whether any other countries require proof of safety for all chemicals produced, but I suspect that few do...
Registering chemicals reminds me of when the government made drugs illegal, and now I can't buy any drugs!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut seriously, I can't think of anything more roundly regulated than chemicals in industrial and consumer products. Haven't MSDS's been required for 20 years or so? There are 5 banned HCFC's alone... the article makes is sound as if the 1976 law is the only law ever written to cover chemical safety. What do you think the EPA and the FDA do every day? OSHA?
And how exactly do you "prove" a chemical is safe? They certainly are NOT safe. Batteries are manufactured in large vats of Cyanide. Mercury isn't safe, manufacturing and burning cigarettes is absolutely proven to be cancer-causing and dangerous even to non-smokers. What's the plan?
This column is so confusing I can't even understand what it is suggesting the problem is, and what the new laws are going to change. Someone please enlighten me!
-RM
Well put - thanks!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW - the only thing I could understand about the 'chart' was the legend with totals for three groups of chemicals' test/restriction status, which now seems to be in question. The two graphical 'balls' convey no meaningful information whatsoever...
Most of our cleaning products can be replaced by DIY stuff made of baking soda, washing soda, borax, vinegar, hydrogen peroxide, rubbing alcohol and lemon juice...just to start with. In this modern age, we have duped ourselves into thinking that we need industrial chemicals for so many things - time to change! I am not worried about this being a burden on corporations. In countries where certain chemicals have been banned, some US corporations provide that product without the offending chemical, and in the US it may be sold with the offending chemical. Another part of this solution is consumer awareness and consumers using their buying (or not buying) power. Isn't it funny how corporations are able to change, when purchases of their products decrease?? That's how the system is supposed to work...and it does. However, further regulation is still needed, also, to protect the public. Not everyone is able to read SA....Also, check out the Breast Cancer Fund and Environmental Working Group sites to learn more about chemicals in our environment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow is it possible to applaud corporations growing wealthy from selling chemicals but and yet claim it would be an unfair 'burden' upon them to test their own products for safety? Corporations are to be rewarded financially for sales of products meeting consumer needs and preferences. When deprived of health data, consumers cannot are burdened with decision making in the absence of data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we begin with full disclosure of ingredients (patents protect proprietary interests), consumers can begin to make decisions regarding current use chemicals. As corporations meet deadlines for assessing hazards, these can be publicized (as many consumer watchdog groups have done thus far) but at corporate expense. It takes 30 years to ban a hazardous chemical while the costs of related illnessees fall upon taxpayers and legal settlement costs are passed onto consumers anyway. No burden for the corporations at all - only unlimited gain. Note that as health care costs increased, salaries and health benefits decreased. Why? Because universal health care reveals the causes (eventually) of diseases. That is what led the EU to pass REACH and what led the US to ban smoking in the workplace and public buildings.
See www.armchairactivist.us for fuller details in posts like "A Nation of Patients" and "The Morality of LItigation".
Barbara Rubin
Please forgive the poor editing of the above comment - I am mildly aphasic as a result of pesticide poisoning by chemicals largely untested.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBarbara Rubin