Chemicals Everywhere!

This week in in our Environmental Science class I had to read “Regulating toxic chemicals: Do we know enough about chemical risks?” an article dealing with the chemical risks we are dealing with in our country today. 

You see in today’s society we come into contact with thousands of chemicals throughout our lifetime and you and I might assume that they are safe based solely on the fact that they are used in the products we purchase otherwise we might reason if that were not the case the government would not allow them to be used. Well this assumption would be a false one. It turns out that the government does not require companies to prove that their products are safe rather it puts the burden of testing and proving possible harmful effects on scientist, government regulators (who are understaffed and ill equipped) and other consumer watch groups. This has the potential to create devastating health effects on consumers. The article spoke how large recalls of products have had taken place because a product was deemed unsafe and potentially harmful after being in use for long periods of time among consumers. Well you might reason, that must be because the chemicals used in products are mostly well known and their history has proven they are safe right? Wrong. Every year according to the article about 700 new chemicals are added to the list of chemicals being used in our products. Most are used before true and efficient testing is done. For many of these chemicals we do not know what if any long term effects by come to be. Our testing methods are also faulty. You see we do the majority of test on animals where they receive large doses of chemicals in hopes of learning whether a certain chemical causes major harmful effects. But, we do not seem to be testing for the harmful effects caused by small doses of these chemicals. The companies that are promoting the uses of these chemicals are ignoring that their products might be harmful to us. 

The United States is not the only country that faces this problem. Countries all around the world have to deal with these same issues, but some have taken bigger steps toward solving the problem. The European Union and other countries have adopted what is known as the Precautionary Principle (PP) into effect in their regulations. The PP puts the burden of proof of a products safety on the manufacturer rather than the government and consumer watch groups. A company must submit proper scientific proof that their product is safe for human use prior to obtaining approval for use in the consumer market. Also, if a product might pose a harmful risk then the PP states that the product must be banned. The PP aims at preventing harmful effects rather than having to scramble to correct a potential health issue in the future without the use of the principle. 

There are those who do not agree with the PP. Some state that it does not really help prevent potential health effects rather they state it hurts the consumer market and consumers as additional cost are incurred and passed down to the consumer. Others state that it is troublesome. In the article Gary Marchant a law professor at AZ State University argued that the PP is not a good idea because among other things it is “problematic” because there are “various unofficial versions” of PP exist. 

Well I learned that the government is not doing its job to keep us safe from chemicals that might harm us. As I read the article it seemed ludicrous to me that the government would allow these companies to pretty much regulate themselves and have them decide whether the chemicals were safe for human use. Are you kidding me? Does the government really feel these companies are in a position to decide objectively? I do not believe it so, I believe that most companies are in the market to make profits and that being so they will and have pushed chemicals that might be harmful all in the name of greed. They do not care about the consumer and therefore they should have the responsibility of proving their products safe prior to use in the consumer markets. The government should also require that they (companies) use outside independent testing in order to prove safety. We are not talking about something frivolous here; we are talking about our health and that of our children. It angers to see that these large companies have so much pull and clout that the government that was created “by the people and for the people” caters to these large corporations and does not care about “its people.” 

Those who oppose the adoption PP do so because they are not looking at the bigger picture or because they have vested interest in the rejection of the PP.  The principle is not perfect, it might have various definitions but instead of rejecting it altogether we should work to perfect it. The companies promoting and using potentially harmful chemicals have proven they are not willing to do what is best for the consumer. The BPA found in plastics was one example given. The companies that used this product did not act out to replace its use in plastic until consumers and suppliers refused their products. 

I believe that we should adopt the Precautionary Principle in our society. Other countries around the world are successfully using this idea to help their societies. I do not mean to say that this will correct all the ills in our society regarding harmful chemicals but I do believe it will be a start in the right direction. We must take back control of our health. We must not allow those with vested interest in profits to make decisions for us. Instead they must prove that they are responsible with the use of chemicals. They must prove that the safety and concern of our health is more important to them than profits.

Here are two links that will help you become more familiar with the Precautionary Principle:

http://www.sehn.org/ppfaqs.html 

http://www.commonweal.org/programs/precautionary-principle.html