The Issue of Safe Chemicals Act - Essay Example

ment of “Safe Chemicals Act” Memo Year in, year out, the U.S. industries use countless chemicals to produce items with a widespread use in society. E.g. fuels, paints, cleansers, industrial solvents and additives. It is a paradox that, however useful, some of these chemicals negatively the environment and affect human health. Ergo, they need to be properly regulated and monitored in order to address health and safety risks. Congressional interest in revising chemical control laws has heightened in recent years due to rising concern that current legislations may not be sufficient to protect the environment and human health. The Congress passed the (TSCA) Toxic Substances Control Act in 1976 to accredit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regiment chemicals that were potentially arbitrary risks to the environment and health of human beings. Whether or not the TSCA submits the EPA with sufficient tools to protect human health and the environment against exposure to chemical pollution is questionable. Using common sense principles and current science, the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition is working with Congress to repair our broken chemical system so that chemicals are proven safe before being added to our schools, places of work and even our homes. The 1976 (TSCA) is outdated and ineffective at protecting the public from chemicals. The chemicals may be of good use, but they are also counterproductive essentially because they have been linked to learning disabilities, reproductive problems, asthma, cancer and other serious diseases. Signaling our clear intention to protect families from toxic chemicals associated with serious health problems, Senators Frank Lautenberg, Amy Klobuchar, Charles Schumer , and I, with the support of others presented Senate Bill S.847, the "Safe Chemicals Act" to upgrade America’s out of date system for managing chemical safety. The E.U., like the U.S. has laws governing the use and production of chemicals. “Safe Chemicals Act” Memo February 7, 2012 Senator Barbara Boxer Chairperson, Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Congress The Environment and Public Works Committee United States Congress I will begin by looking into activities surrounding (REACH) Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals and the (TSCA) Toxic Substances Control Act. In the recent past, the E.U has amended its policies for chemical control through legislation known as (REACH) Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals in order to improve the identification and mitigation of risks from chemicals. The comparison of the TSCA and the recently enacted REACH approaches has the following results: Both legislations, TSCA and REACH, have accouterments to guard information rendered by chemical companies as classified or delicate business information; however, REACH, unlike TSCA, enforces more extreme restrictions on the types of information companies may assert as either classified or delicate (Arnoy76). For instance, REACH generally does not allow covertness claims to apply to the trade name of the chemical, nor does it grant such assertions the ability to employ to guidance on the safe use of the chemical. Moreover, REACH, in general, constrains all chemical companies to develop and then bestow the results to the government regulators the feedback on the information on the aftereffects of the chemicals they have in production on human health and the environment, whilst TSCA generally does not compel them to (Boethling 11). Case in point, Subject to the authority of REACH, chemical companies submit, and in some instances come up with, the information on the chemicals’ physical and/or chemical properties and health and environmental aftereffects for both new and existing chemicals produced over particularized volumes. REACH also dispenses regulators with the general jurisdiction to feel the necessity for chemical companies to submit any affixed test data and other information whenever considered necessary, so as to evaluate a chemical’s risk to both the human health and the environment (Gorbes 22). In contrast to REACH, TSCA somewhat places the burden on EPA to demonstrate that chemical data on health and the environment after effects are necessities prior to requiring chemical companies to develop the data. Now that we are done with that topic we can say that in connection with this, whilst TSCA may feel the necessity for all chemical companies to give notice to the EPA prior to production or importation of a new chemical, it does not feel the necessity for chemical companies to develop and submit the data on health and environmental aftereffects, that is unless EPA decrees a new statute necessitating them to do so. Subject to the authority of REACH, chemical companies must obtain authorization to continue using a chemical that is regarded with extreme concern; an example would be a chemical for which scientific evidence of plausible fatal health or environmental effects. Subject to the authority of TSCA, EPA has differing authorities to control the risks posed by new and existing chemicals (McLeod 34). Moving on to the next point; For new chemicals, EPA can stall or bring to a complete halt the production or usage of a chemical depending on whether or not the agency determines that insufficient information or data exists to authorize a sensible evaluation of the health and environmental aftereffects of the chemical, and that, if such information is in absenter, the chemical may pose an unreasonable risk to either the environment and health of human beings; to find a suitable solution, the production of the chemical will be in abundant quantities, and entry to the environment will also strictly be in abundant quantities. On the other hand, if the chemical is not new, EPA regulates the chemicals for which it finds reasonable basis exists, for already existing chemicals (Boethling 3). REACH’s essential principle, or conventional procedure for chemical companies is that they have the responsibility to make evident or manifest that the chemicals they placed in the market, administered, or use do not in any way adversely tampers with the environment and health of human beings, whilst TSCA generally feel the necessity for EPA to exhibit the chemicals that are potentially risks to either the environment and health of human beings anterior to controlling risks that are related to their production, dissemination, or use. Albeit their role will probably be less celebrated than wars, marches, riots, stormy political campaigns, Acts like TCSA and legislations like REACH, it is books that have at times most powerfully influenced social change in the American lifestyle. On to the next point, Case in point, ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’ by Harriet Beecher Stowe roused Northern antipathy to slavery in the years prior to the Civil War. But as a case in point, Silent Spring. Rachel Carson who is a renowned author and whose work is widely read is the author Silent Spring. It inspired widespread concerns with pesticides and pollution of the environment. Silent Spring is a cry to the reading mass to help curb private and public programs, which by use of toxins will end up with apocalyptic results. Rachel Carson’s account of the present is afflictive. It is not hopeless _hasn’t the point of hopelessness yet. This is because measures to avoid the despair and dismay can be implemented, for a brighter future (Cass12). The book describes in great detail the little things we as humans are doing to damage our planet and all of its life. We introduced these chemicals to the environment, oblivious to the fact that the pesticides not only infect the pests they were intended for, but also other plants, animals, and even human kind (Poul 27). Silent Spring facilitated the ban of the pesticide DDT in 1972 in the United States by documenting the inimical aftereffects of pesticides on the environment, particularly on birds. Contrasting the pros and cons of pesticides, the cons greatly outweigh the pros. Therefore making the use of pesticides, to make the environment a better place to inhabit, becomes counterproductive. The inspiration behind Rachel Carson’s book was that, referring to excerpts from her book, the more she got a broader understanding on how to use pesticides, the more she found pesticides repugnant. This was like a revelation to her because she realized that it was material with enough potential to become a book. What Carson discovered was that as a naturalist, everything which mattered most to her was being compromised, and that she could do nothing with more importance (Cass 10). On discovering the adverse aftereffects, she set her mind towards writing Silent Spring and let the public on the qui vive for the adversities resulting from pesticide; and also so as to exhort her massive readership to help her in the fight against the misuse of biochemical pesticides. When excerpts of Silent Spring started showing up in the magazine dubbed The New Yorker in June 1962, the subsequent result was tumult and a howl of acrimony from the chemical industry (Indur42). Incorporating into her book good real-world examples, ones that the public could relate to, of how the pesticides were adversely affecting the environment attributed the effectiveness of generating public combat to pesticide use. For example, when accounting for her fight against pesticides, she clarified how sometimes they kill several other non-targeted forms of life, and also citing as an example, construes how spraying of DDT, in the mid1950s, was initiated to stop Dutch elm disease (DED) from spreading. The Dutch elm disease (DED) had destroyed elm trees in Michigan State University which was the habitant of a big population of robins that were in the area (Arie 16). Basically, the whole tree, for all trees, was sprayed with the poison, and despite the fact that the spraying of the pesticide was to eliminate the bark beetle that was famous for spreading the DED. Subsequently, earthworms that ate the leaves fed on the tree leaves that were also coated with insecticide and poison, and later ate the worms that had been contaminated, got DDT poisoning and died. In another illustration, she references the significant drop in the populations of the young salmon that had occurred in Northwest Miramichi as an aftermath of performing DDT spraying around the vicinity to prevent the destruction of the balsam afforests by the spruce budworm (Van Wijk 25). To add on to that, Rachel Carson explained, that the marine insects that is the diet of the undeveloped salmon, had been killed and therefore left with nothing edible to keep them alive. Laruzuu is especially well-appointed to bring out a broader understanding of this story, given his dynamic contribution in several of the utmost important instants in environmental law history as an ambassador for the Justice Departments Environment and Natural Resources. Laruzuu, given his dynamic contribution in several of the utmost important instants in environmental law history as an ambassador for the Justice Departments Environment and Natural Resources, discussed the significance of Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring. Bisphenol-A (BPA) is an organic compound with the chemical formula (CH3)2C(C6H4OH)2. It is a colorless solid that is soluble in organic solvents but poorly soluble in water. Having two phenol functional groups, it is used to make polycarbonate polymers and epoxy resins, along with other materials that are used to make plastics. BPA is controversial because it exerts weak but detectable hormone-like properties, raising concerns about its presence in consumer products (Jonathan 21). Starting in 2008, several governments considered its safety questionable, which as a result prompted some retailers to infiltrate polycarbonate products. A 2010 report from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) raised further concerns regarding exposure to fetuses, infants and young children. 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. In the last several decades, Congress has passed various legislations to increase federal agencies’ abilities to identify and address the health and environmental risks associated with toxic chemicals and to address such risks (Jonathan 24). 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. Other laws, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Consumer Product Safety Act, can be used to protect workers and consumers from unsafe exposures to chemicals. In trying to figure out how the U.S can get a better system to safely discharge its chemical wastes, and still be competitive in the market along with other systems like E.U, we need to consider the cost of disposal of waste and the Consequences of improper disposal or non-disposal. Some of the good disposal methods include returning the plastics to the donor or manufacturer, Landfilling, Waste immobilization (encapsulation & inertization), Sewers, Burning in open containers, incineration and Chemical decomposition (Arie 22). Another way of controlling hazardous aftereffects of chemical waste is by enforcing authorities to establish restrictions for any chemical that poses unacceptable risks and to feel the necessity for authorization for the use of chemicals identified as being of very high concern. These restrictions could include banning uses in certain products, banning uses by consumers, or even completely banning the chemical. Authorization should be granted if a given manufacturer can demonstrate that the risks from a given use of the chemical can be adequately controlled or if a threshold can be determined for the chemical. If no threshold can be determined, the manufacturer has to demonstrate that the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risks associated with continued use and that there are no suitable alternatives or technologies available (Indur 56). Thank you all for your help in putting this new system into place. Best regards, Barbara Boxer. Works Cited 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 Cato Institute, 2001. Poul Harremoes, David Gee, and Malcolm 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, Vol. 112, No. 1 (October 2002). Carolyn Raffensberger and Joel Tickner. 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