LETTER OF PRINCIPLES FOR TOXIC CHEMICAL REGULATORY REFORM

[Guest guest]

From: 's Precaution Reporter #172, Dec. 10, 2008

http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/ht081210.htm LETTER OF PRINCIPLES FOR TOXIC CHEMICAL REGULATORY REFORM To the Obama transition governmentDear President-Elect Obama,

Congratulations on your victory in the election for president of theUnited States. We look forward to the positive changes you plan onmaking, and send you this letter to offer our support in thatendeavor, especially for the urgently needed reform of our chemicalregulatory policy.

Recent reports about industry influence and possible interference withour chemical regulatory policy on chemicals at the FDA, EPA and otheragencies threaten the confidence of all consumers about Americanproducts, and about our government's role in protecting health. As weare sure you know, storms of controversy over chemicals in everythingfrom shower curtains and lipstick, to baby bottles, infant formula,canned food, cars, toys and even pet food have increasingly unnervedparents and anyone concerned about public health.

Though its effects may not be as obvious, the deregulation of thechemical industry has hurt the United States just as much as thederegulation of Wall Street, with effects likely to last generations.Scientists, physicians, health advocates, worker organizations, parentgroups, health-affected groups and many others view fundamental reformto current chemical laws as urgent and necessary to protect children,workers, communities, and the environment now and in the future.

The economic costs of current levels of chemical contamination areoften hidden, though they contribute significantly to reduced workerproductivity, increased hospital costs, more expensive healthinsurance, and greater burdens on businesses for hazardous wastestorage, disposal, and clean-up fees. Uncounted in the conventionalcost-benefit analysis of our chemical regulatory policies is the pricewe pay for children with developmental disabilities or the toll onfamilies with chemical exposure-linked illness, not to mention eco-system impacts, made worse by global warming.

Mounting scientific studies link chemical exposure to human illnessand unnecessary disabilities and chronic conditions. The mostvulnerable include children, women, and communities of color and thosealready stressed by depressed economic conditions and diminishedaccess to health care and information. Spikes in rates of illnesslinked to chemical exposure include: obesity, diabetes, thyroiddisease, childhood cancers, breast cancer, prostate cancer, heartdisease, asthma, neurodevelopmental problems, learning disabilities inchildren that persist throughout life and other effects. Althoughchemical exposure knows no boundaries, communities of color locatedaround chemical manufacturing areas and whose geographic locationreceives chemical drift from applications elsewhere are at particularrisk.

Tragically, these preventable illnesses and health effects linked tochemical exposure are on the rise, and the effects of some chemicalexposure effects can last for generations. Scientists, physicians,health advocates, worker organizations, parent groups, health-affectedgroups and many others view fundamental reform to current chemicallaws as urgent and necessary to protect children, workers,communities, and the environment now and in the future.

People all over the United States, including Mossville, Louisiana,Glynn County, Georgia, Dixon, Tennessee, Port Arthur and CorpusChristie, Texas, agricultural communities in California, NorthCarolina, Washington, and Florida and elsewhere are suffering fromchemical contamination. Arctic Indigenous communities are among themost highly exposed populations in the world. The Arctic has become ahemispheric sink for long-lasting chemical contaminants that travellong distances on oceanic and atmospheric currents. These chemicalsaccumulate up the food chain in fish, wildlife and peoples of thenorth.

Harm from chemical exposure from U.S. based and other chemicalcorporations is not limited to the U.S. Despite efforts by theinternational community to identify the most dangerous chemicals andphase them out, the U.S. government has obstructed this movement andhas lost credibility with an international community suffering fromthe health effects of insidious chemical exposure caused,significantly, by U.S. corporations and their foreign allies. Ongoingefforts of the U.S. government to impede and obstruct majorinternational policy advances such as the Stockholm Treaty and REACHhave had serious economic and political consequences.

The opportunity to eliminate toxic chemical exposure and build a newgreen economy that supports clean production of safe consumer goods isnow at hand. By designing new, safer chemicals, products, and greenproduction systems, American businesses will protect people's healthand create healthy, sustainable jobs, and enhance our ability tocompete in the international marketplace. Some leading companies arealready on this path and the workers and neighboring communitiesbenefit. They are creating safe products and new, green jobs by usingclean, innovative technologies that benefit public health, theenvironment and the bottom line. But transforming entire markets willrequire policy change.

Please consider these five steps to improve the health and well beingof Americans, to protect future generations, promote industryinnovation and technological superiority in designing safer chemicals,products and manufacturing processes, reduce our dependence on foreignoil, and reward businesses that protect workers and lead the way to anew, green energy economy that will benefit all Americans.

1. Hire and Gather the Best and the Brightest for your ToxicsRegulatory Team* Deploy thoughtful leaders on: chemical exposure and environmentalhealth, scientific and common sense solutions to the toxic chemicalcontamination problem, innovations in business and industry with GreenChemistry development, and other innovative thinkers to advise theadministration on toxic chemical exposure as a variable in alldomestic and foreign policy as well as on new appointments to agenciesand departments relevant to environmental health. One example would beforming a task force on chemical regulatory reform or some othermulti-stakeholder process to help expedite immediate action. Theseinnovative thinkers should advise the administration on toxic chemicalexposure as a variable in all domestic and foreign policy as well ason new appointments to agencies and departments relevant toenvironmental health and have no financial conflicts of interest. Itwill be important for this group to see the interconnectivity ofissues inherent to a healthy and prosperous future.* Set a public interest research agenda that coordinates greenchemistry with green energy and green engineering technologies beingdeveloped and supported.* The administration should adopt the position that the right to aclean and healthy environment is an inalienable right that will beprotected by the courts.

2. U.S. Chemicals Policy Must Adhere to Principles and Guidelines forEthical Chemical Regulatory Reform* U.S. residents and all peoples have a fundamental right toprotection from exposure to toxic substances, including from chemicalsand nuclear radiation, in our environment and our bodies. The purposeof the U.S. chemicals regulatory policy must be to protect us fromthese exposures, while preventing the export of toxic substances thatcould harm other countries.* U.S. chemical regulatory policy must understand and implement thePrecautionary Principle so that we may finally join the modernchemical policies of other countries around the world. ThePrecautionary Principle forms the foundation of the European Union'sREACH law on chemicals and international treaties such as theStockholm Convention. This foundation for U.S. chemical policymandates adequate scientific evidence that will help to insure that asubstance is safe before it is allowed to be introduced in themarketplace.* U.S. chemical regulatory policy must provide remedies for theinjustice of unequal environmental protection based on race that hasexposed communities of color to significant levels of toxic pollution.Such remedies must include a legal standard that requires a safedistance between a residential population and a chemical facility anda private right of action against a federal, state, or localregulatory agency whose decision or action results in a raciallydisproportionate pollution burden.* In addition to aligning with REACH, U.S. chemical regulatory policymust regain U.S. leadership by respecting the intentions ofinternational agreements, including Strategic Approach toInternational Chemicals Management (SAICM), the Stockholm Convention,Rotterdam Convention, Basel Convention, the Montreal Protocol, and anew global free standing legally binding agreement on mercury andother similar substances of concern.

3. Revamp the Chemical Evaluation Process* A gross lack of knowledge currently exists in the U.S. about thedata on chemical substances produced, imported, exported, and used inthe U.S. This serious data deficiency demands immediate adoption of acomprehensive process of identifying and assessing criticalinformation for all substances before they can be produced, marketedor allowed for continued use. Of utmost priority art chemicals thatare suspected of being mutagens, carcinogens, reproductive orneurodevelopmental toxicants, endocrine disruptors, and persistentbioaccumulative and toxic chemicals. Examples include: phthalates,bisphenol A, perflourinated chemicals, endosulfan, lindane,perchlorate, methyl bromide, methyl iodide, organophosphates, dioxins,furans, and brominated and chlorinated flame-retardants, and non-persistent chemicals, such as benzene, which may be difficult todetect.* Evaluation of the chemicals must be on the basis of their inherenthazards and toxicity, including threats of harm to workers who makethem, the communities where they are made, the communities where thechemicals and chemical-induced products are used, disposed ordestroyed, and where there is danger for impacting the health of thegeneral public, now and in the future, as in the case of neurotoxinsand many carcinogens, which can take years to trigger or manifesteffects.* Chemical evaluation processes also must be based on completetransparency and mandated data collection from the corporations thatmake the chemicals, removing "business security" shields frommanufacturers of suspected dangerous substances. Health and safetyinformation should not be considered confidential business informationand a "No Data, No Market" rule should be implemented and enforced.* Suspected materials must be phased out more rapidly where safersubstitutes are already available.* No U.S. government agency should be allowed to shield chemicalcorporations from being mandated to provide information under theguise of "national security," in regard to chemical productionfacilities or transportation of these chemicals.* Evaluation of chemicals must be conducted by U.S. governmentscientists and academic colleagues in a manner that that upholds theintegrity of the evaluation, with public financial support as well aspolitical support for independent research and protection for speakingfreely about their findings. Scientists must be expected to reportunbiased results, free from political and industry-driven influences,with all findings subject to fully transparent, independent peerreview. Scientists must have support and protections to be able toconduct independent scientific study and speak freely about theirfindings -- the "gag order" on U.S. federal scientists must be removedimmediately.* Immediate action to pursue permanent Chemical Security legislationthat would require thousands of facilities, including all watertreatment plants to require the use of safer chemical alternatives andprocesses. Millions of people inside the U.S. are at risk if anunintentional or intentional (terrorist attacks) industrial chemicalaccident were to occur. The framework required includes improvingstandards for review of safer and more secure alternatives, workerinvolvement, and crucial government accountability. One immediateconcern is the need for a structured review of federal facilities thatpose the danger of an off-site chemical emergency release. Thestandards for these reviews must be focused on "alternativesassessment" rather than "risk assessment."

4. Reform "Stakeholder" Influence in Decision-Making* U.S. chemical policy regulators, including non-scientist appointeesand staff members, must be completely free of ties to the chemicalindustry or other entities that would attempt to influence theirdecisions or impact the integrity of chemical evaluations. Regulatorsmay consult with the chemical industry, but we need a change from whathas become a conventional U.S. process in which the chemical industrydictates chemical regulatory policy and writes relevant legislation.The preferred "stakeholders" in this process must be the people of theUnited States, not the chemical corporations.* The people of the United States need to have access and the abilityto participate in the chemical evaluation process, which requiresresources for capacity building and access to expertise to representtheir interests.* The Toxic Release Inventory rule and other tools for industrytransparency?must be strengthened, and the public's right to knowchemical data should be guaranteed. There must be Executive andlegislative support for mandating complete transparency for all dataregarding chemical exposure in communities, including pesticide usedata.* Toxic chemical exposure must also be considered an EnvironmentalJustice issue, and previously ignored and disenfranchised communitiesof color and of modest economic standing must be brought into theprocess of identifying vulnerable populations and implementingculturally respectful policies for empowerment to become safe fromchemical exposure. This can only be accomplished through dedicatedresources for capacity building at the community level.* Resources must be immediately directed toward environmentalmonitoring of air, water, and soil where chemical exposure issuspected in order to prevent, not just manage, exposure to workersand communities.* When toxic chemical exposure is identified, immediate action andresources must be available to halt the exposure and protectcommunities, especially children, honoring the cultural integrities ofeach community.* Assessment of toxic chemical exposures must be an immediate mandatedcomponent of all relief efforts for communities in times of disaster,with protection mitigations in place to prevent additional and newexposures (as in the example of the FEMA trailers) compoundingexisting tragedy.

5. Create Economic Strength and Strategy Via Toxic Chemical ExposureProtections* A program of incentives must be developed to support the efforts ofchemical corporations, the auto and oil industries, and other relevantindustries to develop less harmful substitutions for their products.No new products should be allowed into the marketplace withoutadequate scientific study on health effects. The responsibility mustbe on the producer to demonstrate no harm. Regulatory and financialbarriers for companies seeking to develop and use less toxic products,move away from reliance on petrochemicals, and reduce resourcedepletion in production, including use of water, should be addressed,and incentives provided for those corporations that demonstratesignificant progress insuring that their workers, communities, andcustomers are protected.* "Polluter pays," reverse onus, and other precautionary policies, inaddition to the Rio Principles should be adopted as a foundation forU.S. environmental protections and for restoring confidence in U.S.corporations, their standing in the community, and the products theymake. Re-establish support and enforcement of Superfund policies.* Support programs for farmers to transition to safer, less toxicmeans of food production must be instituted.* Integrate Toxic Chemical Exposure Issues Throughout U.S. GovernmentAgencies and Policies* EPA must partner with the Centers for Disease Control and immediateresources need to be made available for biomonitoring and publichealth surveys of communities where chemical exposure impact issuspected. Monitoring should also include biota and human tissuecontamination with the intention of tracing the sources ofcontamination. These agencies must develop and use a protocol for theevaluation of chemical exposure impact that is based on thePrecautionary Principle* Intentional dosing of human beings, especially children, withpesticides and other known toxic chemicals in experiments is unethicaland must be prohibited.* Chemical contamination knows no political boundaries. Testing ofimported foods and other products for chemical contamination must bereinstated.* The U.S. government must make it illegal for U.S. corporations todump toxic waste or sell banned or restricted products outside of thecountry. U.S. corporations must be accountable and responsible forharm that befalls communities at home and overseas from chemicalexposure caused by these corporations chemical manufacture, use(including in consumer products), and disposal. The U.S. must become aparty to the Basel Treaty and uphold its principles.* The U.S. government must define toxic substance hazard as a variablein all international trade, human rights, and other agreements andencourage and support other nations to reduce and eliminate toxicsubstance exposure.* Toxic chemical exposure must be taken into account for all U.S.policies, including stimulus for the economy,?job creation, thetransition away from petrochemical fuels, education, and other urgentchanges in U.S. economic and social enterprises.* A timeline must be set for putting a modern chemical regulatoryprocess and policy in place; time is of the essence with the health ofhundreds of millions of people at stake.

Thank you.

The undersigned groups are eager to assist with designing and buildingsupport for transformational change to the U.S. chemical regulatorysystem and offer our recommendations as enthusiastic partners of thePresident-Elect's new administration to achieve necessary and timelychange.Sincerely, Abulafia, MHS, Director, Environmental Health Initiative,American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities(Formerly AAMR)Martha Dina Arguello, Executive Director, Physicians for SocialResponsibilityRuth Berlin, LCSW-C, Executive Director, land Pesticide NetworkJoan Blades, President and Co-founder, MomsRising.orgArlene Blum, Executive Director, Green Science Policy InstituteLin Kaatz Chary, Great Lakes Green Chemistry Network Crowe, Director, Kentucky Environmental FoundationKathleen Curtis, Policy Director, Clean New YorkCarol Dansereau, Executive Director, Farm Worker Pesticide Project,WashingtonJoe DiGangi, International Pops Elimination NetworkTracey Easthope, Environmental Health Director, Michigan EcologyCenterJay Feldman, Executive Director, Beyond Pesticides Gavigan, CEO, Healthy Child, Healthy WorldLois Gibbs, Executive Director, Center for Health, Environment andJusticeDori Gilels, Executive Director, Women's Voices for the Earth Gilje, Executive Director, Pesticide Action Network NorthAmerica Harden, Co-director and attorney, Advocates for EnvironmentalHuman Rights Hawes, attorneyRick Hind, Legislative Director, GreenpeaceDr. J. Hirzy, Vice-President NTEU Chapter 280 (EPA HQProfessionals Union), and Chemist in Residence, American University Kepner, Project Director, Beyond PesticidesBettie D. Kettell, RN Durham, MaineElise , MEd, Executive Director, Institute for Children'sEnvironmental HealthPam , Biologist and Director of Alaska Community Action onToxicsMark A. , MD, MPH, President, Connecticut Coalition forEnvironmental Justice Montague, PhD, Environmental Research FoundationSuzanne , Executive Director, WorksafeJanet Nudelman, Director of Program and Policy Breast Cancer FundJudith , Director of Programs, Environmental Health FundMike Schade, PVC Campaign Coordinator, The Center for Health,Environment and Justice (CHEJ)Ted Shettler, MD, MPH, Science and Environmental Health NetworkLynn Thorp, National Campaigns Campaigns Coordinator, Clean WaterActionLaurie Valeriano, Policy Director, Washington Toxics CoalitionNathalie , Co-director and attorney, Advocates for EnvironmentalHuman Rights Welker-Hood, ScD MSN RN, Director, Environment and HealthPrograms, Physicians for Social ResponsibilityCharlotte Wells, Galveston BAYKEEPER? TexasResourcesContaminated without Consent www.contaminatedwithoutconsent.orgIs It In Us? isitinus.org/The Louisville Charter www.louisvillecharter.orgPrinciples of Environmental Justiceej4all.org/environmental.principles.phpScientific Consensus Statement on Environmental Agents Associated withNeurodevelopmental Disorders Developed by the Collaborative on Healthand the Environment's Learning and Developmental DisabilitiesInitiative February 20, 2008 (revised July 1, 2008) www.iceh.org/pdfs/LDDI/LDDIPolicyStatement.pdfToxic Playroom www.toxicplayroom.orgMessenger wants to send you on a trip. Enter today.