Phase Out Persistent, Bioaccumulative, or Highly Toxic Chemicals
This paper proposes eliminating chemicals that are slow to degrade, accumulate in our bodies or living organisms, or are highly hazardous to humans or the environment. It also aims to ensure that these chemicals are not exported to other countries once they are eliminated in the United States.
According to this paper, the U.S. government lacks the authority or policy to prevent most chemicals from being used in products or released into the environment. In addition, only a very small portion of chemicals currently require testing before being used in manufacturing products or being released into the environment. This is why there is an urgent need for a chemical policy reform.
This paper also argues that an effective chemical policy reform will combine a phase-out of certain highly toxic chemicals with policies addressing the management and substitution of other harmful chemicals. A key point of an effective chemical reform policy is to reward the use of safer alternatives and eventually requiring the adoption of such safer alternatives. The goal of this reform is to transfer to using safer chemical alternatives without disrupting industry sectors, jobs, and the economy.
Current federal approaches to regulate these highly toxic chemicals such as the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) have not been effective.
I think that in addition to phasing out highly toxic chemicals and finding alternatives for these, another important aspect of effective chemical policy reform is to manage the remaining chemicals out in the environment after it has already been phased out. Otherwise, although this chemical will no longer be produced traces of it will still exist since it is persistent in the environment.
According to this paper, the U.S. government lacks the authority or policy to prevent most chemicals from being used in products or released into the environment. In addition, only a very small portion of chemicals currently require testing before being used in manufacturing products or being released into the environment. This is why there is an urgent need for a chemical policy reform.
This paper also argues that an effective chemical policy reform will combine a phase-out of certain highly toxic chemicals with policies addressing the management and substitution of other harmful chemicals. A key point of an effective chemical reform policy is to reward the use of safer alternatives and eventually requiring the adoption of such safer alternatives. The goal of this reform is to transfer to using safer chemical alternatives without disrupting industry sectors, jobs, and the economy.
Current federal approaches to regulate these highly toxic chemicals such as the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) have not been effective.
I think that in addition to phasing out highly toxic chemicals and finding alternatives for these, another important aspect of effective chemical policy reform is to manage the remaining chemicals out in the environment after it has already been phased out. Otherwise, although this chemical will no longer be produced traces of it will still exist since it is persistent in the environment.
Hi Syria,
ReplyDeleteChemicals are present in our society and our daily lives e.g. when cleaning, wash clothing, painting or using cosmetics. Some of these chemicals are harmful, persistent, and have the potential to remain for a long time in humans and animals’ organs and cause serious diseases. They can also have a negative impact on environment. Due to this large production and consumption, persistent chemicals are widespread in the air, soil, and water. They can accumulate in the food chain and small quantities in the environment can lead to high levels in animals at the top of the food chain. As you noted from the article, the U. S. government lacks the authority or policy for pretesting of new chemicals, many new toxic chemicals added to the market products which requires testing and investigation in terms of whether they have health effects on human, animals and environment in long term or not. In other hand, it is not clear that do the companies and manufactures have any follow up phasing out? In what criteria they would set their priorities for action? Responding to these questions requires a comprehensive toxic chemical policy and or review and reform of the existing policies.
Thank you,
Sayed
Hi Syria,
ReplyDeleteI agree that although we do need to focus on phasing out highly toxic chemicals, we also need to focus on cleaning up areas that are already contaminated. Its kind of crazy to think that we still continue to use PFAS, when we know it stays in the environment for millions of years!