Whereas a criminal can have the defense of "innocent until proven guilty", when it comes to chemical toxicity it really should be reversed -- "toxic until proven safe". To make any change in policy fail-safe, however, such as REACH proposes to do, the testing for toxicity or danger of any chemical should be done by non-interested labs -- labs not on the payroll of the big cartels -- a sort of Carter Institute of chemical approval. Shouldn't all public policy be subject to checks and balances anyhow?
On 1/17/07, Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Risk Policy Report, Jan. 16, 2007 <http://www.precaution.org/lib/07/prn_use_of_pp_grows.070116.htm>[Prin ter-friendly version] Use Of 'Precautionary Principle' For Chemicals Is Growing Environmentalists and other public health advocates say recent movements by states, businesses and international regulatory bodies are signs of increased use of the so-called '<http://www.precaution.org/lib/pp_def.htm>precautionary principle' -- efforts that come as Democrats are raising key questions about federal toxics laws. Activists say the precautionary principle is beginning to emerge in a variety of political and commercial arenas, including efforts by businesses to reduce potential toxic exposure; the growth of green chemistry programs; and, to a lesser degree, a recently adopted European chemical regulatory program. The precautionary principle places the burden on those advocating new policies or products to prove the efforts will not cause public harm. For example, the chemical industry would be burdened with proving a chemical is safe before introducing its use. The chemical industry remains the primary focus of the precautionary principle, as environmentalists argue federal laws are insufficient to regulate chemicals that may pose a threat to human health. Activists say it takes EPA years or decades to regulate harmful chemicals, because the agency must first prove the chemicals pose a health threat. They cite lead, mercury and other well-defined hazards as examples where the agency has struggled to eliminate hazardous uses. In particular, environmentalists say the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is problematic. The law, which has not been updated since Congress passed it in 1976, may face intense scrutiny from Democrats who are promising oversight of toxics issues. The concept of the precautionary principle ruffles chemical industry officials, who say it is ill-defined and poses unnecessary burdens on the industry. Officials argue TSCA is sufficient to regulate chemicals and also note that industry voluntarily supplies data to EPA on a number of the most highly-used chemicals in the United States. Given that information, EPA has enough data to screen for chemicals that may pose a threat, industry officials say. Environmentalists, however, say the precautionary principle is already being successfully applied. For example, the Democratic governors of Maine and Michigan issued executive orders in 2006 promoting "green chemistry," or the substitution of less toxic forms of chemicals for those that may pose health risks. Environmentalists say the efforts represent a form of the precautionary principle being actively applied, and note the results could generate significant economic benefits for those states. Other states, including Massachusetts and New York, are considering similar programs. In addition, California is considering a legislative approach to green chemistry, though it has yet to be unveiled. (Risk Policy Report, Nov. 7, p1). In another example, environmentalists cite San Francisco's recent decision to ban phthalates in children's toys as a regulatory driver for the precautionary principle. The city voted to ban the chemicals, which are used to soften plastics, based on concerns that the chemicals may cause reproductive harm. But industry and retailers say the risks are minimal, and filed suit to block the ban. If the ban sticks, toy manufacturers may be forced to examine other alternatives (Risk Policy Report, Oct. 31, p2).Some businesses are also taking steps to reduce toxics in their products, which environmentalists say is another application of the precautionary principle. For instance, some retailers are leaning on suppliers to provide furniture, medical supplies or other products that do not contain chemicals suspected of causing health problems. In the international arena, the European Union (EU) adopted a new chemical regulatory program known as Registration, Evaluation & Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) in late 2006. REACH is aimed at requiring data on most chemicals produced or sold in the EU, and requires safety testing for certain chemicals before they can be used. Environmentalists are divided on whether the program is an example of the precautionary principle. Some argue it is one of the greatest triumphs of the principle, while others argue it is simply a more stringent regulatory program than that of the United States and does little to implement the precautionary principle. One public health advocate says REACH will generate more hazard data but is still shy of precautionary. "What's going on in Europe is a preview," the source says, but other regulatory efforts and incentive- based programs will likely be needed to take a precautionary approach to public health. Industry officials, on the other hand are adamant that REACH is not a sign of the precautionary principle being invoked. Instead, they say the program simply adds significant regulatory burdens that may pose an economic threat to industry but offer little public health benefits. Whether REACH is founded on the principle or not, environmentalists argue that the precautionary principle will not necessarily place an insurmountable burden on industry or regulators. Instead, they say the principle makes the case for analysis of available alternatives and places burden-of-proof that a product or regulation is safe on those advocating for use or implementation. Public health advocate says industries invoking the precautionary principle by aggressively pursuing green chemistry and other safer alternatives can avoid long-term regulatory battles. "If you design safer products to begin with, there's no need for a regulatory scheme to control it," the advocate says. Some environmentalists are saying that REACH will provide a benchmark, and hint that new ideas for restricting toxics are yet to come. For example, some argue that if the principle were to be adopted in the United States, regulations would work differently. One researcher cites the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) as a potential regulatory precursor. FQPA requires industry to submit data to EPA detailing whether pesticides cause adverse effects in children, and is an example of how the precautionary principle might be applied in a regulatory framework. The researcher argues that all chemicals, not just pesticides, should meet similar requirements. "At least as a first step, it would be important that industrial chemicals be given the same scrutiny as pesticides," the researcher notes. "The current research structure is not working to protect kids." Some of those thoughts have been vocalized by Democrats as well, including incoming Senate Environment & Public Works Chair Barbara Boxer (CA), who has vowed oversight of toxics issues. Other Democrats raising toxics concerns include Reps. Hilda Solis (CA) and Henry Waxman (CA). Observers expect Democrats to hold key oversight hearings in the 110th Congress, and question whether TSCA revisions might appear on the agenda. _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
_______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
