![On the back of a Dragonfly [B&W]](http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6194/6128449851_14ec409b56_s.jpg "On the back of a Dragonfly [B&W]")
Keeping Us Safe from Toxic Chemicals
Of the nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market today, only 200 have been tested for harmful effects. On September 29, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Lisa Jackson released a set of principles that will guide the much-needed reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 and increase public confidence in the safety of chemicals that are produced and used in the United States.
Principle #1: Chemicals should be reviewed against safety standards that are based on sound science and reflect risk-based criteria protective of human health and the environment....
The process of risk assessment has a checkered history. Some chemicals have been bogged down in the process for decades, despite clear evidence that they are dangerous. Meanwhile, people are still being exposed and harmed. We should have a quicker pathway to reduce human exposures to the most hazardous chemicals.
Principle #3: Risk management decisions should take into account sensitive subpopulations, cost, availability of substitutes, and other relevant considerations.
The requirement to consider costs could be a stumbling block to protecting sensitive groups, such as children. Other health laws, such as the Clean Air Act, explicitly state that health comes first. It's okay for the EPA to consider costs, but an analysis that pits children's health against economic interests would be a real mistake.
Principle #4: Manufacturers and EPA should assess and act on priority chemicals, both existing and new, in a timely manner.
There are dozens of chemicals we already know are bad for the public, the environment, or both. Think asbestos. For a long time, the EPA has been unable to ban most of its uses because of hurdles in the law. The EPA needs to be able to restrict or eliminate the use of chemicals that a lot of people are exposed to and that we know are dangerous.
Principle #5: Green chemistry should be encouraged and provisions assuring transparency and public access to information should be strengthened....
Currently, there are no incentives for chemical manufacturers to develop so-called green chemicals -- chemicals that are designed to be nontoxic to our health and to the environment. To create these incentives will be good not only for the economy but also for public health.
Yes it has taken a long time for the public to see how toxic most chemicals really are, but as it is with anything it takes more than one to make a diffirence, so finnally we have a good consious following that will make things change.Our company has been promoting a GREEN cleaning product for the past five years, witch will kill bacteria and germs on contact, it will eliminate most chemicals that people keep under their kitchen sink.
This product will clean anything, and also will do your laundry for penny's a load.
So my question is that why is it, that if the goverment is supposed to look out for our wellbeing, they require you to go true the most grueling process and at a astronomical cost, witch only the large corporations can affort. Just because we do not have the funds,the public has to suffer?
Would every one benefit from free goverment testing?
And would it maybe reduce the health care burden? Isn't our health more important than share holders profit's? For all who like to try this product for free please send an email to extremeseal@verizon.net. Finally to all who moderate this website, don't see this as spam but as a learning experience!
Thank you.
Paul Bogaars.
I think one of the most important things chemical reform can do to protect us is to include nonanimal methods of testing into the language of the bill.
Currently, many toxicity tests are based on experiments in animals and use methods that were developed as long ago as the 1930’s; they and are slow, inaccurate, open to uncertainty and manipulation, and do not adequately protect human health. These tests take anywhere from months to years, and tens of thousands to millions of dollars to perform. More importantly, the current testing paradigm has a poor record in predicting effects in humans and an even poorer record in leading to actual regulation of dangerous chemicals.
Alternatives to animal testing exist in a powerful way and many scientists advocate them. If we want to see true changes in our health we must reform the ways we conduct science.