A column in yesterday s Sunday Review showed how closely the writer, Ian Urbina, hews to the agenda of his apparent mentor, Nicholas Kristof, in trying to scare Times readers about the alleged dangers of toxic, unregulated chemicals. Of course, as we have noted recently, it s the TSCA reform silly season, when those who feel passionately that the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) needs to be tightened start to believe their own hype, a la Don Quixote and seekers of the Lost City of Gold. Cooler and wiser heads will again prevail, despite prophets of chemical doom peddling such stuff as: ¦industrial chemicals do not have to be tested before they are put on the market.
But wait! What about this passage, only a few lines down: Currently this burden rests almost entirely on the federal government. Companies have to alert the Environmental Protection Agency before manufacturing or importing new chemicals. But then it is the E.P.A. s job to review academic or industry data, or use computer modeling, to determine whether a new chemical poses risks. To me, this sounds like there is plenty of regulatory oversight even before a chemical is allowed on the market. So why, then, does TSCA need reformin ? The main reason seems to be this: It is the only major environmental statute whose core provisions have not been reauthorized or substantively updated since its adoption in the 1970s.
Note that despite Urbina etal s consistent use of the term toxic before chemical in a new grammatical law among those who post on the Green Blogosphere, there is no evidence that chemicals in consumer products or anywhere for that matter cause any illnesses in humans. Sure, the law has only been implemented rarely since its passage 37 years ago, so it must be weak, say Urbina, Kristof and their acolytes. ACSH s Dr. Gilbert Ross asserts that, On the contrary, the fact that despite the requirements to prove a substance s safety something that cannot actually be proven, by the way and the lack of evidence that chemicals in our environment harm anyone confirm that the law is fine as is. If it ain t broke, do not try to fix it.
