On an otherwise pleasant morning, ACSH staffers blood began to boil after reading the latest anti-chemical screed in theHuffington Post, which included such fear-mongering claims as this: Ninety-nine percent of pregnant American women carry multiple manmade chemicals in their bodies, sharing that concoction through the umbilical cord.
The latest assault on chemicals preceded yesterday s Environment and Public Works Committee's vote on the Safe Chemicals Act, which if passed, would replace the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976. First introduced in 2005 by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), the Safe Chemicals Act would require that manufacturers must first prove a chemical is safe before it s approved for use. As the law currently stands, the EPA must demonstrate that a chemical already in use poses substantial health risks before it can be phased out.
That means that the over 80,000 chemicals currently permitted for use would have to undergo massive testing in order to remain on the market. Can you imagine such a thing as clinical trials for chemicals, as if they were pharmaceuticals? ACSH s Dr. Gilbert Ross sardonically remarks. Getting one drug to market costs over a billion dollars and takes a decade imagine the havoc if such a process were to be mandated for chemicals singly and in combinations too numerous to tabulate.
And how would they go about testing all of these chemicals for safety anyway? ponders ACSH s Dr. Josh Bloom. They d almost certainly have to rely on animal models, so that what the EPA will end up doing is detecting chemicals that are toxic to rodents. He adds, It is easy to talk about testing everything, but actually doing so is not as simple. For example, you would need to define a number of variables, such as which animal model to use, the dose of the chemical, and how it is administered, just to name a few. Even more confusing will be interpreting the data. Suppose 1,000 chemicals are found to be moderately toxic to rats at a high dose. What does this mean? Have you really learned anything about the risk of the chemical?
And as ACSH has long pointed out, even if a chemical is removed from use, what guarantees that its replacement is any safer? Well apparently Ken Cook, president of one of our favorite activist coalitions, the Environmental Working Group, raised the same question and believes the answer lies in relying on federal help to get off this toxic treadmill.
What s really toxic, says Dr. Ross, are reforms such as the Safe Chemical Act. This is the precautionary principle at its best: Place the burden of proof on chemical companies to prove safety, even though it s nearly impossible to do such a thing. And how would Mr. Cook advise us to to get off that treadmill, if current chemicals are toxic and new ones a vast black hole? The only solution, it seems: Ban all chemicals!
As ACSH;s Dr. Elizabeth Whelan aptly points out, such legislation has no basis in reality, as anti-chemical hysteria is largely a psychological problem rooted in paranoia and politics, not science. Simply stated, the Safe Chemical Act would protect us from risks that don t exist.
