Detoxify America

The last few years have witnessed a re­surgence of public concern about toxic threats to health and the environment. In the 70s and 80s, high profile trage­dies like Love Canal and Woburn put toxic threats largely in the frame of haz­ardous waste sites, and spawned a whole new arm of the environmental move­ment to confront these threats.

But in the last few years, citizens are coming to see toxics not as a far away threat in someone else’s backyard, but a story of risks right in their own homes.

While the most high profile of these sto­ries was a series of toxic toys manufac­tured in China, the problem of harmful chemicals in everyday products goes far beyond the lead-painted choo-choo train.

Bisphenol-A in baby bottles. Phthalates in rubber duckies. Formaldehyde in cribs. Shower curtains made with PVC. And if you thought gas guzzling was the automobile’s only prob­lem, just look at the toxic compounds used to make them.

But the problem goes far beyond these isolated consumer product examples. There are more than 80,000 chemicals registered for commercial use in the United States, and we lack basic hazard information on most of them. On the other end of the spectrum, a recent study by the Environmental Working Group found almost 200 known carcinogens in fetal cord blood. Why are we permitting the use of these chemicals in our economy?

Clearly, our system for regulating chemicals in this country is not protecting our environ­ment or our health. For thirty years, the chemical industry has been able to block or end­lessly delay public protections by insisting on proof of harm based on precise measure­ments of exposure and correlated risk. But any toxicologist or epidemiologist worth her salt will tell you that it is virtually impossible to track the number of cancers—or children with learning disabilities—that are caused by one single chemical, when our entire economy is stewing in chemicals. Unlike with smoking, we can do no elaborate, double-blind control studies comparing smokers and non-smokers to positively correlate with each specific disease.

We need a new system in which:

- Hazard is the basis for action: if we know that a chemical causes cancer, neurological damage, or birth defects, we need to move that chemical off the market. We should not wait for a body count.

- Manufacturers are required to use safer alternatives in their products where they are available.

- Chemical companies have to prove their compounds are safe before putting them in commerce.

Recently, Sen. Frank Lautenberg and Rep. Henry Waxman—long-time champions on the environment—re-introduced a bill called the Kids Safe Chemical Act to start address­ing this toxic trauma. Unfortunately, the Kids Safe bill in its current form misses the op­portunity to take several bold steps, like banning those toxic chemicals found in fetal cord blood, or forcing hazardous chemicals off the market if safer alternatives are available. And if this is where the very best of the good guys are starting the debate in Congress, you can imagine where it might wind up.

Clearly we have work to do if we are going to fundamentally de-toxify the American econo­my. To start, Environmental Action will make sure that the story is told—unvarnished.