Some politicians in Europe are bending over backwards to put dirty industry profits before public interest.
How Current Regulations Fail to Protect Us
Chemicals are currently regulated on the basis of a
costly,time-consuming and wholly inefficient process of
chemical-by-chemical'risk assessment'. If the regulators suspect a
chemical might bedangerous, they have the burden to prove it before
any measure can betaken to reduce our exposure. Current regulations
are based on levelsof "safe exposure" Regulators have to try to
work out how much of achemical we can be exposed to and still be
safe. Yet it's impossible todetermine everyone who might be
exposed, for how long or at what leveland the individual impacts.
What, for example, is the safe level ofexposure for an unborn child
in rapid development? What are the effectsof one toxic substance
when in combination with all the othersubstances we are exposed to?
Today there are so many sources ofchemicals that no one knows the
cumulative dose we're getting.
Regulation based on the risk assessment process is moreover
extremelycomplex, slow and has proved to be inefficient. This is
also due to thefact that public authorities are the only body
responsible forassessing the properties and uses of chemicals, with
no responsibilityon the producers and importers of the substances.
The so-called"Existing Substances Regulation" set up in 1993 to
evaluate risksprioritised only 141 substances from the tens of
thousands on themarket and yet, in the 12 years since then, has
delivered finalassessment conclusions on only half of these.
Furthermore, the currentsystem allows companies to continue to use
dangerous chemicals evenwhen we can avoid them by using safer
alternatives.
Brominated flame retardants are added to electronic
equipment,furnishings and automobiles, for example. These flame
retardants arefast becoming a new chemical concern. Tests show that
some of thesechemicals, which can interfere with the proper
functioning of theimportant thyroid gland, are found to accumulate
in women's breastmilk. Incredibly, current regulations force
governments to try anddetermine 'safe' levels of exposure to these
hazardous chemicals. Butlengthy risk assessments may take years
before governments can act torestrict the use of such
chemicals.
Another group of chemicals - phthalates - are added to many
PVCproducts to make them soft and pliable, even though we know
they'rehazardous and that there are alternatives, including
alternativenon-PVC materials. Instead of enforcing the use of safer
chemicals ormaterials when the problems of phthalate toxicity and
exposure inchildren first came to light, EU officials, in sympathy
with thechemicals industry, wasted valuable time inventing machines
to mimicbabies chewing on soft PVC toys in order to estimate how
much of thesehazardous chemicals they might swallow and determine a
'safe' phthalatedose. It took the EU eight years to come to the
conclusion that theonly responsible approach was to avoid such
exposure altogether bybanning the use of several phthalates in toys
and childcare products.Even now, however, these harmful chemicals
can be still used elsewherein a whole range of products around the
home, and will thus still endup in the environment and in our
bodies.
Substitution - It's Common Sense
The EU has admitted its failure to control chemicals under the
laws wehave today. And is now proposing an opportunity to change
the systemwith new legislation called REACH - Registration,
Evaluation andAuthorisation of Chemicals. Environmental, health,
consumers, women'sand labour groups are joining together to defend
a proposal that couldeffectively control hazardous substances and
substitute many of themwith safer alternatives. This proposed law
is under heavy attack by thechemicals industry lobby and has
already been substantially watereddown by their political
allies.
For REACH to work it must insist on:
Substitute with safer alternatives
The most important part of the proposed REACH legislation is the
ideaof substitution: companies would have to replace the most
hazardouschemicals whenever possible. If a company were to make a
chemical thathas hazardous properties it would first have to show
there was no saferalternative and that there was a real need for
the chemical. In thiscase the chemical would only be allowed for
specific uses and only fora limited time until a safer alternative
is developed.
Reverse the burden of proof:
Under current law, governments must prove a chemical is harmful
beforetaking it off the market. The new chemical reform offers a
chance toreverse the burden of proof, by making chemical producers
prove thattheir products are safe before they are put on the
market. If a companycan't provide basic information on the
properties and uses of achemical, it should not be allowed to
market it.
Prevention of risk:
The best approach to hazardous chemicals is a precautionary
approach -preventing risk by avoiding it, rather than trying to
manage it. This"better safe than sorry" approach looks directly at
inherent dangers ina chemical. If it is persistent and doesn't
break down easily in theenvironment, for example, or it
bioaccumulates and builds up in thefood chain, it automatically
carries a certain risk to health and theenvironment, irrespective
of whether or not that risk can bequantified. Rather than trying
endlessly to analyse the risk we shouldavoid it in the first place,
by not licensing such chemicals for use.
Help us to ensure that REACH protects us from hazardous chemicals. Act now!