Safe Chemicals Act Memo - Speech or Presentation Example

 Safe Chemicals Act Memo Good afternoon, fellow senators, distinguished speakers and guests. I recognize the presence of the Chairperson, Committee on Environment and Public Works, the United States Congress, The Environment and Public Works Committee, all protocol observed. On behalf of our Committee, I humbly welcome you all to discuss the Safe Chemicals Act. As the legislation stands today, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 is failing the American public. We all recognize that the regulatory system in place is inadequate for a 21st century economy. The time for reform is now. The safe chemicals act is an issue of great concern to the all the American people, families and organizations included. It is mean to protect the people against the toxic chemicals. While the already existing TSCA law has failed to protect public health, the community and the environment, this new enactment is meant to overcome these failures and ensure that the health of the American people as well as the environment is guaranteed. The purpose of this meeting is to prepare for the upcoming hearing. This event will be of is paramount, since it touches on the lifeline of the people, that is health. It is significant that I commence by looking into the activities surrounding the Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) and the Toxic Substances Control Act 1976 (TSCA). In the recent past, the European Union has amended its policies for chemical control through a legislation known as Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) in the quest of striving to improve the identification and mitigation of risks from dangerous chemicals. In addition, REACH in general does not consent to concealment claims to apply to the trade name of the chemical, nor does it grant such declarations the ability to use as a guidance on the safe use of the chemical. Furthermore, REACH, in general, restricts all the chemical companies to make the chemicals and then give the results to the government regulators and the feedback on the after-effects of the chemicals on the human health and the environment, whilst TSCA does not generally compel them to do so (Boethling 11). Differences between REAC and TSCA REACH Subject to the authority of REACH, the chemical companies are compelled to submit, and in some instances reveal, the information on the chemicals’ physical and/or chemical composition and the impact on the health and environmental effects for both new and existing chemicals which have been produced over particular volumes. REACH in addition bestows the regulators with the common jurisdiction and obligation for the chemical companies to submit any test data and other information considered necessary, so as to evaluate whether the chemical has any health risk to both human and the environment (Gorbes 22). In contrast to REACH, TSCA to some extent places the burden on EPA to show if the chemical data has any effects on the health and environment prior to requiring the chemical companies to develop the data. Interest in revising chemical control laws has heightened in recent years due to the rising concern that current regulatory framework does not sufficiently protect the environment and human health. Congress passed TSCA to empower the EPA to regulate chemicals that stand as risks to the environment and health of human beings. It is evident that TSCA does not arm the EPA with sufficient tools to protect human health and the environment in the quest of striving to increase consumer confidence. The current regime is almost entirely voluntary on the part of the Industry, leaving the EPA without vital information. TSCA Whilst TSCA feels that there is the necessity for all chemical companies to give notice to the EPA prior to production or importation of a new chemical, it does not consider the necessity for the chemical companies to develop and submit the data on health and environmental effects, EPA declares a new statute that makes it necessary for them to do so. Subject to the authority of REACH, the chemical companies must acquire authorization to continue using a chemical that is regarded with extreme concern as dangerous. A good example is a chemical which from scientific evidence has conceivable fatal health or environmental effects. However, subject to the authority of TSCA, EPA has diverse powers to control the risks posed by new and existing chemicals (McLeod 34). EPA As concerns any new chemicals which have no known side effects, EPA can stall or bring to a complete halt the production or usage of the chemical depending on whether or not the agency concludes that there is insufficient information or data to authorize a sensible evaluation of the health and environmental side-effects of the chemical. REACH’s indispensable principle and conservative procedure for chemical companies is that they have the responsibility to make evident or manifest that the chemicals they have placed in the market, administered, or in use do not in any way adversely tamper with the environment and health of human beings. On the other hand, TSCA generally finds it necessary for EPA to show evidence of the chemicals that are potentially risky to both the environment and the human beings before striving to control the risks that are related to their production, dissemination, or use. Even though their role will in all probability be less celebrated than wars, marches, riots, stormy political campaigns, Acts like TCSA and legislations like REACH, it is feasible that their actions will influence the health and social change in the American lifestyle just as a famous book does. Silent Spring book For instance, the book ‘Silent Spring’ by Rachel Carson who is a renowned author and whose work is widely read inspired widespread concerns about pesticides and the pollution of the environment. The publication of the book titled, Silent Spring managed to make a smooth progress of the ban of the pesticide DDT in 1972 in the United States of America by documenting the inimical after-effects of pesticides on the environment, most particularly on birds. This stands as an example of fight for public and environmental health safety. Pesticides Consequently, the use of pesticides was intended to make the environment a better place to inhabit, but it nevertheless became counter-productive. The inspiration behind Rachel Carson’s book was that, the more she got a broader understanding on how to use pesticides, the more she found the pesticides repugnant. This was like a God-sent revelation to her because she realized that it was material with enough potential to write a book. What she discovered was that as a naturalist, everything which mattered most to her was being compromised, and that she could do nothing with more importance than to write a book that managed to change the lives of many American people (Cass 10). Pesticides side-effects On discovering the adverse side-effects of pesticides, she set her mind towards writing Silent Spring to let the public question themselves for the adversities resulting from pesticide by encouraging her massive readership to help her in the fight against the misuse of biochemical pesticides. When excerpts of Silent Spring started getting published in the magazine dubbed The New Yorker in June 1962, the subsequent result was tumult and a shriek of acrimony from the chemical making industries (Indur42). Dutch elm disease (DED) By incorporating into her book good real-world examples, which the public could relate to, and telling how the pesticides were adversely affecting the environment attributed the effectiveness of engendering the general public to combat the use of pesticides. For instance, when accounting for her fight against pesticides, she clarified how they kill other non-targeted forms of life, and disclosed how the spraying of DDT, in the mid1950s, was initiated to stop Dutch elm disease (DED) from spreading. The Dutch elm disease (DED) had destroyed the elm trees in Michigan State University which was the habitant of a big population of robins that were in the area who also got affected(Arie 16). Fundamentally, the trees were sprayed with the poison, and despite the fact that the pesticide was meant to eliminate the bark beetle that was famous for spreading the DED, the earthworms that fed on the contaminated leaves of the elm tree which were coated with insecticide and poison died. In another illustration, she references the significant drop in the populations of the young salmon that had thrived in Northwest Miramichi as an aftermath of side-effects of the DDT which was sprayed around the vicinity to prevent the destruction of the balsam trees by the spruce budworm (Van Wijk 25). In addition, Rachel Carson explained, that the marine insects which are the diet of the undeveloped salmon, got killed and nothing edible was left to keep them alive. Laruzuu is particularly well-appointed to bring out a broader understanding of this story, given his self-motivated contribution in several of the utmost significant environmental history as an ambassador for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources discussed the significance of Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring. Organic compound Bisphenol-A (BPA) is an organic compound with the chemical used to make polycarbonate polymers and epoxy resins, along with other materials that are used to manufacture plastics. BPA however is controversial since it exerts a weak but detectable hormone-like property, which raises concerns about its presence in consumer products (Jonathan 21). Since the most vulnerable population is children, its use needs to be addressed under the act, to protect them. Safety questionable Since the year 2008, a number of governments considered their safety questionable, which as a consequence prompted some retailers to infiltrate the polycarbonate products. A 2010 report from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) raised additional concerns regarding the exposure to fetuses, infants and young children and Canada became the first country to declare BPA a toxic substance in September 2010. In the European Union and Canada, BPA use is outlawed in baby bottles. Some of these laws, such as the Federal Drug, Cosmetic and Food Act; the Clean Water Act; Clean Air Act and the Federal Rodenticide, Fungicide and Insecticide Act authorize the control of hazardous chemicals in, among other things, the air, water, and soil and in food, drugs, and pesticides. Consumer Product Safety Act. Other laws, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Consumer Product Safety Act, may be used to protect workers and consumers from unsafe exposures to chemicals. Some of the excellent disposals methods include returning the plastics to the donor or manufacturers such as, Land-filling, waste immobilization or encapsulation and inertization, sewers, burning in open containers, incineration and chemical decomposition (Arie 22). Safe Chemicals Act The Safe Chemicals Act will remedy this by mandating disclosure of data on the part of the Industry and giving the EPA greater information gathering tools. We must place the burden of information sharing where it is cheapest, and that is with the manufacturers of these substances. The EPA needs the tools to protect the nation’s most vulnerable populations: infants in utero, inner city children, and families that rely on fresh fish for sustenance. This Bill will accomplish that. The United States needs what the chemical industry provides for us. It helps us feed our population, control pest populations, and it is a vital part of our export economy. This importance is precisely why we must now work to strengthen this industry by making its future more sustainable. Conclusion In conclusion, the other way of controlling the hazardous after-effects of chemical include banning the chemical uses in certain products, restricting its use by consumers, or even completely banning the chemical. Authorization should be granted if a given manufacturer can demonstrate that the risks from the use of the chemical can be adequately controlled. or if a threshold might be determined for the chemical and if not the manufacturer must demonstrate that its socio-economic benefits outweigh the risks associated with the continued use and that there are no other appropriate alternatives or technologies available (Indur 56). Thank you all for your attention, your help and time in putting this new system into place. Best regards, Barbara Boxer. Reference Arie Trouwborst. Norwell, Mass.Evolution and Status of the Precautionary Principle in International Law,: Kluwer Law International, 2002. Jonathan Wiener, Dennis D. Paustenbach and Hoboken, N.J “Precaution in a Multi-risk World,”. In The Risk Assessment of Environmental and Human Health Hazards (second edition),.: Wiley-Interscience, 2002. Indur Goklany. The Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal of Environmental Risk Assessment, by. Washington, D.C.: The CatoInstitute, 2001. Poul Harremoes, David Gee, andMalcolm MacGarvin. The Precautionary Principle in the 20th Century: Late Lessons from Early Warnings, London, U.K.: Earthscan Publications,2002. Cass R. Sunstein. Probability Neglect: Emotions, Worst Cases, and the Law, Yale Law Journal, 2002. Carolyn Raffensberger and JoelTickner. Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle, edited Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1999. Julian Morris. Rethinking Risk and the Precautionary Principle,. Burlington, Mass.: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000. Cass R. Sunstein Risk and Reason: Safety, Law, and the Environment,. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Arnot, J.A., D. Mackay, T. F. Parkerton, R. T. Zaleski, C. S. Warren (2010), Multimedia modeling of human exposure to chemical substances: The roles of food web biomagnification and biotransformation, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 29(1):45–55. Boethling, R., K. Fenner, P. Howard, G. Klecka, T. Madsen, J.R. Snape, M.J. Whelan (2009). Environmental persistence of organic pollutants: guidance for development and review of POP risk profiles. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 5(4): 539 – 556. Gobas, F.A.P.C, W. de Wolf, L. P Burkhard, E. Verbruggen, K. Plotzke (2009). Revisiting Bioaccumulation Criteria for POPs and PBT Assessments Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 5(4):624–637. MacLeod, M., T. E. McKone (2004). Multimedia persistence as an indicator of potential for population-level intake of environmental contaminants, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 23(10):2465–2472. van Wijk,D., R. Chénier, T. Henry, M. D Hernando, C. Schulte (2009). Integrated Approach to PBT and POP Prioritization and Risk Assessment, Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 5(4):697–711. http://www.ecocenter.org/newsletters/ecolink/new-report-poison-paint toxics-toys http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mor3xRZuKMU Theo Colborn - Hero of the Environment _Time magazine_ What Are Endocrine Disruptors _EPA_ Environmental Forum on BPA risks 2010-11 Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 - S 847 _excerpts w highlights_ EEnews on TSCA reform 2011-12-14 http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Members.Home GAO Testimony on TSCA reform 2009-12-02 SCHF Campaign Platform ACC TSCA reform platform Precautionary Principle - Science and Environmental Health Network 2000-01 Sunstein on Precautionary Principle 2003 ACC testimony 2011-11-17 EDF testimony 2011-11-17 States_ testimony 2011-11-17 EPA Testimony on TSCA reform 2010-10-26 GAO Report on TSCA _ REACH 2007-08-1 Boston globe on state toxics legislation 2011-01-19 MI Green Chemistry Action Plan 2008-09 Read More