cross-posted at annoyedomnivore.wordpress.com
There are currently more than 80,000 chemicals available for purchase and use in the U.S. today that have never been tested for potential toxic effects on human health and the environment. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 was enacted to ensure the safety of each chemical released into our economy, but was so full of loopholes that it prevented the Environmental Protection Agency from acting even on known health dangers. For instance, it was entirely possible for the EPA to ban asbestos altogether, but a clause in the TSCA, that the EPA use “the least burdensome” means to achieve its goal, meant, over time, that regulating asbestos rather than banning it was a less burdensome option. And so it goes. Recently, Senators Tom Udall of New Mexico and David Vitter of Louisiana have proposed the Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA), which is being lauded mostly because it’s a rare example these days of bipartisan collaboration. But there are problems with this legislation as well, largely because it appears to have been written by the chemical industry.
The core problem with the CSIA is that it places the burden of proof on the EPA. In other words, the EPA must prove a chemical is toxic rather than the industry proving a chemical is safe. The status quo remains in place, therefore, allowing almost any chemical to be put on the market. Various chemicals that are known endocrine disruptors, such as BPA and fire retardants, will then simply continue to be put into products that are used everyday. Although the “least burdensome” requirement has been expunged, the CSIA would only require that 10 chemicals be designated high priority for testing in the first year. How many years would it take to assess the health risks of 80,000 chemicals at this rate? You do the math.
Another problem, which provides a huge loophole, is that the CSIA would require a cost-benefit analysis before the EPA would be allowed to either phase out or ban a chemical. The bill states that “no unreasonable risk of harm to human health or the environment will result from exposure to a chemical.” But in order for the EPA to define “unreasonable,” they must also, according to the precepts of the CSIA, weigh the dollar value of the chemical against the dollar value of cancers, birth defects, attention deficit disorder, etc., that it may cause over the years. And if the EPA rules that the chemical presents no unreasonable risk of harm, the bill states that any new scientific studies in regards to the health or environmental dangers of any particular chemical would be excluded from courtrooms challenging the EPA’s decision. It would also allow the EPA a seven year time frame to investigate a single chemical. And most egregiously, the CSIA would block states from taking any action to keep their residents safe from toxic chemicals. Had California passed prop 65, which would have required the labeling of GMOs, the CSIA would have made it illegal. Washington State currently has a law on the books to restrict fire retardants; that would also be nullified. And Maine’s attempts to eliminate toxic mercury from products would be erased from the books permanently. That eight Republican and eight Democrats co-sponsored this bill shows only that our legislators are interested in proving that something can get done at all, even if nothing at all really gets done, except what is wanted by the industry.
And the chemical industry certainly was involved in shaping the CSIA, as they have donated tens of thousands of dollars to Udall’s campaigns and even sponsored a television ad praising his leadership. Barbara Boxer, a critic of the bill, says that “I’ve been around the Senate for a long time, but I have never before seen so much heavy-handed, big-spending lobbying on any issue. It looks to me like the chemical industry itself is writing this bill.” Indeed, testifying to the toothlessness of the bill is clear as it was endorsed by the American Chemical Council, which has reportedly spent $375 million lobbying Congress between 2005 and 2012 to prevent any meaningful reform of the TSCA.
For his part, Tom Udall falls back on expediency, saying, “we can’t do something that is pie in the sky; we have to deal with reality.” But rather than offer up any real reform, Mr. Udall is contributing heavily to the notion, not new, that democracy is dead. Long live oligarchy.
Recipe of the Week
To make this simple soup deeply satisfying, organic veggies should be used, as well as home-made chicken stock.
Potato Broccoli Soup with Cheddar
2 quarts chicken stock
1/2 lb. broccoli, chopped
3 russet potatoes, unpeeled and chopped
3 celery stalks, chopped
1 onion, chopped
1 medium carrot, chopped
2 cups sharp cheddar cheese
salt and pepper to taste
Put all the ingredients, except the cheese, salt and pepper, in a large soup pot. Bring to a boil, then simmer for about 45 minutes. Puree, then add the cheddar and taste for salt and pepper. If you want to add more cheese, go ahead.