Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 17:22:50 -0600
From: Teresa Binstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: European Environmental Rules Propel Change in U.S.
European Environmental Rules Propel Change in U.S.
By OTTO POHL
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/06/science/earth/06euro.html
BRUSSELS - When Darcy White of Raytown, Mo., chose to breast-feed her
baby daughter two years ago, she had never heard of brominated flame
retardants. But after randomly participating in a study, she learned
that her breast milk carried unusually high levels of the chemicals.
Since then, the Environmental Protection Agency has announced an
agreement with chemical manufacturers to phase out the worst of these
toxic compounds, which are present in a wide variety of consumer goods
like furniture and computer monitors, and Congress is considering
legislation to make the ban permanent.
But it was only after the chemicals had been banned here in Europe that
sufficient political pressure built for a phaseout in the United States.
That cycle was no accident. Globalization has often been condemned as
encouraging a race to the bottom as multinationals seek the cheapest and
least regulated place to do business. But increasingly, American
environmental and public health advocates see globalization as a way to
start a race to the top. They are taking their issues to the European
Union, hoping to use regulations there as a lever for regulations in the
United States.
"We are putting more resources into Europe than we otherwise would have
done," says Charlotte Brody, coordinator of Health Care Without Harm, a
Washington-based group attempting to reduce harmful substances in
hospital supplies. "We desperately need the E.U. to be raising the bar
and show what is possible."
Environmental groups, too, are working more closely with European lawmakers.
"We feel that Europe is a real opportuni ty," says Ned Helme, executive
director for the Center for Clean Air Policy in Washington. Once Europe
moves ahead on programs to curb the gases believed to cause global
warming, Mr. Helme believes, it will promote change in the United
States. "We're pushing where the opportunity for innovation is
greatest," he said.
The regulations affect a broad range of American chemical, energy and
electronics companies, and industry groups say bureaucrats they did not
elect are wielding unprecedented power over them, based on insufficient
evidence of harm.
"The E.U. is going where no man has gone before," says James Lovegrove,
managing director of the European division of the American Electronics
Association, a United States industry lobby. "The moment the ink hits
the paper in Europe it becomes a global piece of legislation.''
The generally stricter European laws reflect a different philosophical
approach to regulation, says Dr. Indra Spiecker, a lawyer specialized in
comparative law and assistant professor for American law at the
University of Osnabrück in Germany. American lawmakers primarily look to
cost-benefit analysis, which holds that the benefit of imposing
regulation should outweigh its cost. European nations have more readily
embraced what is called the precautionary principle. Essentially,
Europeans emphasize the cost of inaction, while Americans tend to focus
on the cost of action.
"Fifteen years ago consumer issues would start in the United States and
sweep over to Europe," says Ursula Schliessner, a product safety lawyer
at McKenna Long & Aldridge in Brussels. "Now when there are consumer
issues in the E.U. they trigger reactions in the United States."
In the case of the flame retardants, scientists from the Environmental
Working Group, researching the prevalence of the chemicals in American
mothers, discovered that Ms. White, an outwardly healthy 31-year-old
practicing nurse, had some of the highest levels ever recorded. Studies
have shown that, in laboratory animals, the chemicals can cause severe
damage to the brain, especially in the first months of life. No one has
proved that the substances are dangerous to humans, and Ms. White's
daughter, Katelyn, is thriving.
Although concerned, Ms. White does not warn expectant mothers who come
to her maternity ward to be tested for the chemicals. "You don't want to
freak out mothers more than they already are," she says.
But Dr. Linda Birnbaum, director of the experimental toxicology division
at the E.P.A., says the risk identified in the European studies, which
then triggered additional research in America, was high enough to
warrant action.
A co-author of the current legislation in Congress, Representative Diana
DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, also says the European action against the
substance was important to raise the issue in the United States. "The
fact that the E.U. is taking steps really helps give us an argument" to
ban the substances, she said.
European legislation can have an even more immediate impact in an area
like consumer electronics. Because of the global nature of the
electronics business, a multinational that redesigns its product to
eliminate a substance banned in the E.U. often finds it cheaper to sell
that product worldwide.
One such law that came into force last year limits or eliminates metals
used in electronics considered particularly noxious when they leach into
the environment.
The E.U. is now considering sweeping new regulation of its chemical
industry that has unleashed what analysts here say is the biggest
lobbying effort in Brussels ever mounted by American industry.
The new law, known as Reach, would place the burden of proof of safety
on the producers before its sale, rather than waiting for problems to
spur regulation later. It would force American chemical companies to
comply with the legislation in order to continue exporting to Europe -
and raises the fear of similar legislation in the United States.
The chemical industry points out that few if any of the unregulated
chemicals are causing obvious health crises and says the legislation is
overly bureaucratic and expensive. The American Chemical Council has
marshaled its members to alter or derail the legislation.
But American environmental groups are eagerly supporting the law. "This
is the place where the action is," says Tony Long, director of the World
Wildlife Fund European policy office. He sees the potential effects of
Reach broader than its technical jurisdiction. "This will have results
around the world," he says.
*
The material in this post is distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
<http://oregon.uoregon.edu/%7Ecsundt/documents.htm>
http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~csundt/documents.htm
<http://oregon.uoregon.edu/%7Ecsundt/documents.htm>
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this email for
purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission
from the copyright owner.
