Thanks in large part to vociferous anti-chemical activists, a new bill in Congress seeks to reform the thirty-four-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). According to the Washington Post, The plan, contained in legislation that Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) is set to file Thursday, would require manufacturers to prove the safety of chemicals before they enter the marketplace. That would be a significant departure from current laws, which allow chemicals to be used unless the federal government can prove they cause harm to health or the environment.
It is impossible to prove that something is safe, says Dr. Whelan. You cannot scientifically prove a negative. Even water can be dangerous. They say that this bill would make it easier for the EPA to ban chemicals that are known hazards. Hazards to whom? Laboratory rats?
Dr. Ross agrees: This bill is an attempt to make the precautionary principle the law in this country, as it is in Europe. It s all based on the assumption that chemicals that harm animals in high doses will have the same effect on humans in low doses, so therefore everything should be tested before it hits the market. It s impossible to eliminate every trace of a chemical from any product.
When new laws are passed, we often expose their unintended consequences, like with the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, says Stier. We want to take this opportunity to warn about the consequences of TSCA reform now, before it passes. This legislation will hurt American industry and cost jobs while offering no benefit to public health. Unfortunately, in this case, the industry, to some extent, brought this problem on itself.
Cal Dooley, president of the trade association American Chemistry Council, is on the record calling for TSCA reform. He said he wants a law that protects children. To me, that suggests: number one, that he believes that his own member companies are currently endangering children, and number two, that he needs the federal government to step in with laws to force his members to stop endangering children. We recognize the need for uniform federal legislation, as opposed to a patchwork of state laws, but that is no reason to pander to the activists.
Stier adds, However, we are pleased that Mr. Dooley has expressed some concerns about the severity of the law. He is quoted in The Hill saying, We are concerned that the bill s proposed decision-making standard may be legally and technically impossible to meet.