The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976
(TSCA), which has control over toxic substances, has not been changed in more than
three decades, even though there has been big changes in chemical production
and our knowledge about how chemicals can harm health and the environment. When TSCA was passed, it allowed 62,000 chemicals to stay in use even though there was no
assurance of human safety and health.
This law was supposed to ensure that chemicals sold and used in the
United States would not pose any risk to human health and the environment, but it hasn't.
What current
legislation has been proposed to address this?
There is a
legislation and bill proposed to address this issue called S.847 Safe Chemicals
Act of 2011. The Title is a bill to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to
ensure that risks from chemicals are adequately understood and managed, and for
other purposes. "The whole world has woken up to the ragged holes in our
federal safety net for chemicals," said Andy Igrejas, Director of Safer Chemicals. "We need a new
law to put commonsense limits on toxic chemicals both to protect American
families, and to give a leg up to American firms in a world market that
increasingly demands safer products."
Who is affected
the most?
"The
science on the links between chemicals and cancer is clear and more widely
accepted than ever before," said Nancy Buermeyer of the Breast Cancer Fund.
"Still, every day millions of families are coping with the devastation of
cancer diagnoses. We must protect the public's health from dangerous or
untested chemicals, and there's no time to wait. Congress should act now on
chemical policy reform."
People who are exposed to chemicals are very affected because their health is at risk.
Also, large manufacturers that sell and use products containing chemicals
are very affected because if this bill is passed, it could mean changing their
whole business policy.
Who loses, and
what do they lose?
When policies
and processes change, it costs the people involved a lot of money. The goal is to manage toxic chemicals, and
managing is done by trial and error. So
the people who lose are the people who have to change their way of going about
business. Passing this Act would require
manufacturers to submit safety data for all the chemicals they use.
“It’s about getting the chemical and related manufacturing industries to
do what they should have been doing all along – verifying the safety of the
products they sell to the public. The onus is on the manufacturers, not the
government, to do the studies, and to use risk-based science in doing so.”
http://cenblog.org/the-safety-zone/2011/07/the-safe-chemicals-act/
http://cenblog.org/the-safety-zone/2011/07/the-safe-chemicals-act/
Who gains, and
what do they gain?
Using safer and fewer chemicals makes sense for our economy, health, and environment as a whole. Everyone will gain because everyone is affected by health and exposed to the environment.
Using safer and fewer chemicals makes sense for our economy, health, and environment as a whole. Everyone will gain because everyone is affected by health and exposed to the environment.
What are
the consequences of the issue?
People who are exposed to toxic chemicals are at risk of death and diseases. America’s health is at risk because of this and our health bills reflect it.
People who are exposed to toxic chemicals are at risk of death and diseases. America’s health is at risk because of this and our health bills reflect it.
For the
individuals mostly affected?
Consequences
for people most affected include death and/or side affects from chemical
poisoning. Those who live near large manufacturers have been proven to have
more diseases and health problems. This
makes their quality of life lower and also increases their health bills.
For their
families?
Families who
have to worry about being exposed to toxic chemicals (especially their
children) can never have peace of mind.
They always have to be careful about their surroundings and what might
be affecting them.
For society?
Society is
affected no matter what. If this Act
does pass, it will help control disease and health care costs. If it does not,
people will have to continue being mindful of chemicals in the environment they
live in.
What is the economic impact of the issue
It will cost someone money, if the bill passes then we pay money to explore options on how to fix the problem. Large manyfacturers could lose money because they can’t go on in the same way and will have to change how they run things.
What are the economic costs of the issue, and who bears these costs?
"Toxic chemical exposures are a multi-billion dollar drag on the U.S. economy, resulting in added health care costs and lost productivity. Not only do they contribute to human suffering in the form of cancer, reproductive health problems, asthma, developmental disabilities, and other significant illnesses, but we believe they negatively weigh on corporate performance and reduce investor returns."
http://www.chloregy.com/home/leadership/207195-safe-chemical-act-of-2011-good-for-business-revives-the-economy
What are the economic benefits of the issue, and who benefits?
Passing this Act would cut the costs of hazardous waste storage and disposal,improve protection of workers and their health care costs, and result in better business for companies because they are doing what is beneficial for society.
What is the social impact of the issue?
People will be healthier if this Act passes. The impact it would have on disease control and health care is huge. People who live by and work for big manufacturing companies are going to be way better off by not being exposed to as many chemicals. Life might have to change for some people if cars and home appliances become altered due to their chemical make up. If large industries who produce chemicals have to change, their changes would affect society.
What are the social costs of the issue, and who bears these costs?
"Exposure to chemicals, particularly for children, is a massive national health issue, threatening both bodies and wallets. Preventable childhood cancer, asthma, neurodevelopmental disorders and lead poisoning alone cost taxpayers around $55 billion per year)."
http://wagingnonviolence.org/2011/11/moms-kids-and-chemicals-framing-the-fight-for-the-safe-chemicals-act/
What are the social benefits of the issue, and who benefits?
Social benefits are a better quality of life for everyone and less need to worry about being exposed to chemicals. Also, if this bill is passed the idea is start using 'green chemistry. This means using processes and products that significantly lower the use of chemicals which is supposed to be implemeted into businesses and save them money.
What are the barriers?
Taking action to control chemicals is an expensive ordeal and takes a lot of time and effort. It also requires consent of large manufacturers who may try to avoid changing their whole system.
What are the barriers to addressing this issue?
Barriers include money that the government does not have, and controversy between large industries and the government.
How can they be overcome?
If everyone cared more about the health of the people than about making money or taking the easy way out, these barriers could be overcome.
What are the resources?
Resources that can be used to support this Act are peoples voice; everyone has a voice and opinion, it is just a matter of how they are used. If the majority supported this Act, I believe it would happen. Also, there is money available and if it is used in the right way, it could be a resource for supporting this Act.
What resources will we need to address this issue?
Governmental support, support of the people, industry support, money
Where and how can they be tapped?
This can be tapped through the people and government becoming united and supporting each other and then bringing resources together.
What is the history of this issue?
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA), which has control over toxic substances, has not been changed in more than three decades. Since 1976 there is a lot more knowledge about chemicals and so an updated law needs to be set.
What past efforts were made to address it?
Past efforts including the TSCA were never truly enforced, that is why so much harm has been done.
What were the results?
The results were poor health and death for some Americans who were exposed to chemicals because chemical emissions were not controlled or monitored.
Allies & Opponents
Who would support this issue?
Congress supports this issue along with many people of the American people.
Who would oppose this issue?
Manufacturers who do not wish to develop and submit a minimum data set for each chemical they use. For some, it means losing money and convenience in the way they do things.
The Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA) is also skeptical. "There is broad stakeholder agreement that TSCA needs to be modernized, but the Safe Chemicals Act is not workable. It fails to adequately consider its impact on innovation or balance chemical safety with continued manufacturing in the U.S.” SOCMA President Lawrence D. Sloan said. “Ultimately the Safe Chemicals Act will have to consider how the costs and delays associated with increased data submission will impact U.S. jobs. Right now, there has been insufficient discussion about this important issue.”
http://www.socma.com/pressRoom/?subSec=3&sub=71
In my reseach however, I did find that most are in agreement that somthing needs to change, the disagreement is in HOW to best reform the TSCA.
How can you involve allies and opponents in advocacy efforts?
Some meetings were held in October regarding this Act. “The sessions hosted non-profit groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Environmental Defense Fund and industry representatives such as the American Chemistry Council (ACC), Dow Chemical Co., the Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA). The point of these sessions has been to find compromises between all stakeholders to generate forward momentum for Lautenberg’s “Safe Chemicals Act” (S. 847), which is designed to overhaul the way chemicals are regulated by U.S. EPA.
But the outcome of the meetings remains unclear. It is reported that not all participants in these environmental groups and industry representatives had mutual discussions, and not all sides are aware of how the other stands on different parts of Lautenberg’s bill. In spite of the updates that Lautenberg has made on the bill, it is generally seen by the industry stake holders as too onerous.”
http://www.safetec.net/ehs-exclusive/update-on-the-path-of-the-safe-chemicals-act-through-congress/
The key to having both sides come together is to talk through it with each other and come to an agreement that is best for the people.
How do you want policy-makers to vote on this proposed policy?
My vote is yes because I believe strongly that having fewer chemicals in our air would make a huge difference in the health of Americans. This would save billions of dollars on health care that could be used for other things. I do think that the title of this Act is too vague, but it is a good start.
Sources:
- http://lautenberg.senate.gov/assets/SafeChem-Summary.pdf
- http://www.sehn.org/Volume_13-3.html
- http://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/32008-Safe-Chemical-Act-of-2011-Good-for-Business-Revives-the-Economy
- http://www.saferchemicals.org/2011/04/safe-chemicals-act-of-2011-introduced-today-legislation-would-protect-american-families-from-toxic-chemicals.html
- http://www.safetec.net/ehs-exclusive/update-on-the-path-of-the-safe-chemicals-act-through-congress/
- http://cenblog.org/the-safety-zone/2011/07/the-safe-chemicals-act/
