The current set of requirements for determining which chemicals are safe and which are hazardous known as the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was created in 1976 during the administration of Gerald R. Ford. As more fingers point to hazardous materials as responsible for growth in chronic illnesses and life-threatening diseases, activists are amping up their efforts to get these regulations updated.
In June, Connecticut became the first state in the nation to ban the toxic chemical bisphenol A (BPA) from infant formula and baby food cans and jars, as well as the full range of reusable food and beverage containers. The new law takes effect October 1, 2011. According to Sarah Uhl, coordinator of the Coalition for a Safe and Healthy Connecticut ?an amalgam of more than 50 Connecticut non-profits, health professionals, labor groups, environmental justice leaders and others ?it was a big first step. But a first step only.
BPA poses exposure to an unnecessary hormone disruptor, according to the coalition. It was first created as a sex hormone, but now is found in common household products. It can leach out of plastic bottles, cups and food can liners, particularly when heated, and contaminate the human body.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, 93 percent of Americans have detectable levels of BPA in their bodies. Last May, Harvard University scientists published research showing that college students who drank water from polycarbonate sports bottles had 70 percent more of the chemical in their bodies than those who drank from BPA-free containers. More than 200 studies have found that low-dose exposure to BPA is linked to heart disease, cancer, neurological impairments and reproductive problems.
"[State] House and Senate leaders on both sides of the aisle deserve praise for this bipartisan victory," Uhl said when the bill was passed. "Volunteers and citizen leaders around the state have triumphed over chemical companies and their hired-gun lobbyists."
BPA has become the "poster child" for a larger problem at hand. Chemicals are not required to be tested for safety for humans and the environment before they are allowed on the marketplace. The ban is a much-needed legal step in the right direction, but, according to Uhl, taking this effort chemical-by-chemical may not be the most effective approach.
"Our goal is to decrease chronic disorders and diseases by phasing out toxic chemicals and promoting safer alternatives,"says Uhl. "We've had a lot of success just over the past few years. The BPA law is the strongest law in the world now on bisphenol A and is seen as a model for pending federal law.
"We're trying to move beyond this one-chemical-at-a-time approach. It's not going to protect our residents and workers,"she adds.
While Congress has begun to hold hearings on updates to TSCA, the real action has been taking place at the state level, according to Uhl.
Two items top the coalition's legislative agenda this year. An Act Concerning Child Safe Products (H.B. 5650) aims to clarify the process by which state government identifies toxins in children's products, and creates a timeline for phasing these chemicals out of those products when alternatives exist. An Act Promoting Safe Workplaces & Clean Technologies (H.B. 5126) would establish a board of directors and mission of a Chemical Innovations Institute. Once adequate federal and/or private dollars are raised, the body would provide in-state businesses with new information about chemicals of concern, safer alternatives and emerging chemicals regulations. It could also assist state agencies with chemicals management. The institute would help businesses comply with new chemical regulations, thus saving and potentially attracting new, green jobs to the state.
On March 1, the General Assembly's Environment Committee heard a proposal for the bill that would create a Chemicals Innovations Institute at the University of Connecticut. Under H.B. 5126 the institute would work with businesses, state agencies, non-profit organizations, workers and community groups as a resource for information about chemicals that are of concern to public health and the environment. The institute would offer safe alternatives to such chemicals, and educate about emerging state and federal chemical regulations.
After researching and identifying chemicals that are important to the state economy, the institute would provide research, technical assistance and offer training for businesses regarding chemical regulations and safer chemical alternatives.
The institute would be established using federal funds.
"The coalition would help them to raise more funds and work with businesses making the transition,"adds Uhl.
Testifying before the Environment Committee Timothy Morse, a professor of UConn's Occupational and Environmental Health Center, stressed that chemical policy is undergoing change both nationally and internationally. These changes have significant implications for Connecticut businesses and workers.
"The European REACH [Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical substances, a new regulation on chemicals and their safe use] legislation, for example, will restrict the import of products that contain restricted chemicals, and so Connecticut manufacturers need to be aware of the regulations and be able to access safer alternatives to chemicals in order to successfully export products,"Morse said.
With changes in U.S. chemical policy on the horizon, Morse warned Connecticut employers to remain ahead of the changes in order to stay compliant and competitive.
"The approach of substituting safer alternatives to toxic substances has very high benefits to workers and the community in relation to prevention of illness, to the environment in relation to reduced toxic burden and to employers in relation to access to markets, reduced compliance costs, improved public relations and reduced liability costs,"Morse said.
Such laws regarding chemicals have national support. A report released in January, "The Health Case for Reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act"by the Washington, D.C. group Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, asserts that Americans would be healthier if exposure to toxic chemicals was reduced.
As Congress debates the costs of health care and its reform, Safer Chemicals sees an opportunity to prevent disease and reduce health-care costs by overhauling state and federal chemical policies.
The report shows that if a new health-based legislative framework to safely regulate chemicals yields even a 0.1-percent decrease in the incidence of chronic diseases a conservative estimate direct medical savings in Connecticut would exceed $50 million each year. National savings would be at least $5 billion per year.
John Meyer, MD, MPH, associate professor in Occupational/Environmental Health at the University of Connecticut Health Center, recognizes scientific evidence linking toxic chemicals to the development of childhood leukemia, learning disabilities, adverse pregnancy outcomes, reproductive disorders and other health problems. He believes that prevention of these exposures should begin with strong chemical-management policies that will reduce the use of toxins that can harm human health.
According to Safer Chemicals, the battle between the chemical industry and public-health organizations over how the TSCA will be updated is about to heat up. They say there are 80,000 chemicals used in everyday products, and only 200 of these are required to be tested for safety. In the next two weeks, both the U.S. House and the Senate will hold hearings on this issue in anticipation of a bill expected to be introduced later this month by U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.).
Lewis Wise, an attorney with Rogin Nassau law firm, says it's true that businesses really are under no obligation to offer safer (read: green) alternatives to employees.
"There is a big distinction between safe and green,"Wise explains. "Employers have a general obligation to provide a safe workplace for their employees. There are laws that regulate the use of hazardous materials on a job site. Like many states, Connecticut has a law that prohibits smoking in the workplace to protect employees. Those laws are intended to provide for a safe workplace.
However, Wise adds, "While employers do have an obligation to keep their employees safe from hazardous materials, they are under no legal obligation to use green chemicals.
He cites this example: a maintenance crew using Formula 409 for office cleaning, instead of a theoretically "greener"cleansing agent.
"As long as what you're providing or exposing your employees to is not a recognized danger, or something recognized as a harmful substance, the employer has not violated any rules,"Wise says. "Formula 409, as an example, is certainly not recognized as a hazard, so it's no problem. If the employer was using something with hypothetically mercury or lead, that's a recognized danger and there could be another outcome.
Nationwide, employers must adhere to the Occupational Safety & Health Administration's (OSHA) workplace rules to ensure the safety of employees. If an employer violates one of these rules, they'll have to answer to OSHA. But OSHA standards don't mandate that the greenest products available must be used.
"There are cleaning materials that don't contain the chemicals that a 409 contains, and there are other issues, such as the question being raised lately: What effect does the product have on the environment, not only the person using it?"Wise says.
"This will only change if the 409s of the world are regarded unsafe because of the chemicals or for whatever reason,"he says. He doesn't see that happening, though, even with proposals to put a tighter lid on the chemicals that can and cannot be used in the workplace.
end of file
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
