Re: Isn't it time we regulated chemicals? Tim Montague, Environmental Research Foundation: Murray 2005.06.25


"Rich Murray" <rmforall@xxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:11c1rsmk4ks9qf0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1176
> Isn't it time we regulated chemicals?
> Tim Montague, Environmental Research Foundation: Murray 2005.06.25
>
> From: "Gary Greenberg" <gngreenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <Occ-Env-Med-L@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RACHEL: Isn't It Time We Regulated Chemicals?
> Date: Saturday, June 25, 2005 2:04 AM
>
> ---------------- Information from the mail header -------------------
> Sender: Occupational & Environmental Medicine
> for Clinicians & Public Health Professionals <Occ-Env-Med-L@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Poster: Gary Greenberg <gngreenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RACHEL: Isn't It Time We Regulated Chemicals?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Moderator note: ERF is an advocacy organization, routinely alarmed
> about potential new claims of environmental health dangers. Their
> well-written editorials are presented to the oem-l forum in an effort
> to provoke intellectual discussion, not as an endorsed point of view.
> For contrast, see the newsletters posted from ACSH. -G)
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS June 23, 2005
> #820 http://www.rachel.org
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> ISN'T IT TIME WE REGULATED CHEMICALS?
>
> By Tim Montague*
>
> If you read almost any newspaper these days, you learn the following
> kinds of information:
>
> ** Many plastic toys contain chemicals that can interfere with the
> sexual development of laboratory animals and are now thought capable
> of doing the same in baby boys.[1]
>
> ** Most of the rivers and streams in the U.S. are contaminated with
> low levels of chemicals that can change the sexual orientation of fish
> and can interfere with reproduction in animals that feed on fish.[2]
>
> ** Dozens of toxic chemicals have recently been measured in household
> dust, indicating that common consumer products are contaminating our
> homes with toxicants.[3]
>
> You might ask yourself, isn't the government regulating dangerous
> chemicals? Unfortunately, the answer is No, not in any effective way.
>
> About 1700 new chemicals are put into commercial use each year, almost
> entirely untested for their effects on humans and the natural
> world.[4]
>
> After a chemical causes enough harm for someone to take notice, then
> the government conducts a numerical risk assessment (aka, quantitative
> risk assessment) on an individual chemical. The point of a numerical
> risk assessment is to learn how much of a chemical is "safe" to eat,
> drink, and breathe. Then the government may try to regulate releases
> of that chemical. But fewer than 1% of all chemicals are currently
> regulated. (See Rachel's #815.)
>
> A scientist at the University of Oregon has described why numerical
> risk assessment doesn't work, and has suggested other ways we could
> control chemical hazards.[5] Dr. Joe Thornton -- a biologist --
> explains that numerical risk assessment is a fundamentally
> inappropriate way to control persistent pollutants (such as heavy
> metals and chemicals containing chlorine) for two reasons:
>
> 1) It assumes that we can learn all the ways that every individual
> chemical can cause harm in humans and in the natural environment --
> but there aren't enough scientists in the world to do this.
>
> 2) Many industrial chemicals tend to stick around for a long time and
> move from place to place in ways that are impossible to predict, so
> often we don't even know what we're looking for.
>
> Thornton proposes we adopt four new ways of regulating chemicals --
> zero discharge, clean production, reverse onus, and phasing out entire
> classes of persistent chemicals -- because the old way (regulating one
> chemical at a time at the end of the discharge pipe) simply doesn't
> work.
>
> Risk assessment assumes that damage is local, short-lived, and
> predictable. But organisms and the environment are complex,
> interconnected, and only partly understood (to put it mildly).
> Therefore, we cannot predict cause-and-effect in any reliable way. In
> the face of these insurmountable difficulties, we can take a
> precautionary stance: when we have good reason to suspect harm, yet we
> have scientific uncertainty, we can err on the side of caution. Faced
> with choices, we can give the benefit of the doubt to public health
> and to nature.
>
> Thornton's four principles begin to clarify how the precautionary
> principal can work in the real world. These principles are:
>
> ZERO DISCHARGE -- Persistent and bioaccumulative toxicants are
> incompatible with ecological processes, and no amount of their release
> into the environment is acceptable.[6]
>
> CLEAN PRODUCTION -- We can consider alternative technologies up front
> and avoid the use of known toxicants in manufacturing. Finding
> alternatives rather than approving pollutants becomes the focus.[7]
> For example, in dry cleaning, we can replace perchloroethylene (perc)
> with CO2 and water-based methods.
>
> REVERSE ONUS -- Apply the same logic used in drug safety: give
> manufacturers the responsibility to show that a product is reasonably
> safe for use before it can be released into the environment. This
> shifts the burden of proof from society to the chemical companies to
> provide information about their products, to monitor for harmful
> effects and to come clean about their findings.
>
> EMPHASIS ON LARGE CLASSES OF CHEMICALS -- Faced with the
> impossibilities of measuring the impacts of individual chemicals,
> simply phase out entire classes of compounds that are clearly
> problematic. PCBs, CFCs and lead compounds are all examples of classes
> of chemicals that have been phased out because of their hazards.[5]
>
> Thornton gives six reasons why the current risk paradigm is so flawed:
>
> 1. ACCUMULATION OF PERSISTENT POLLUTANTS
>
> Risk-based approaches assume that nature and living things can absorb
> and assimilate synthetic chemicals, breaking them down and digesting
> them. This may be true for sewage, oil, and other naturally occurring
> substances. But persistent organic pollutants (POPs) like pesticides,
> solvents, refrigerants, etc. often resist natural breakdown and can
> persist for years, decades or centuries. (See Rachel's #284, #505,
> #611.)
>
> Many POPs and metallic pollutants are fat-soluble and thus
> bioaccumulate as they move up the food chain. Top predators like
> humans, bears, and big fish can accumulate chemical concentrations
> that are tens of millions of times greater than typical environmental
> levels.
>
> Persistence and bioaccumulation mean that even very small discharges
> of synthetic chemicals can build up to dangerous levels in our bodies
> over time. The general public's average body burden for some of the
> best studied pollutants is already at or near the range at which
> health impacts have been found in laboratory animals.[5] To avoid this
> problem, we can declare that there is no level of acceptable discharge
> for chemicals that persist or magnify in the food chain -- in other
> words, we can adopt a zero-discharge policy.
>
> 2. CUMULATIVE GLOBAL POLLUTION
>
> Numerical risk assessment oversimplifies the real world and considers
> environmental risks to be local in time and space. Once a chemical
> disperses beyond some horizon, it is assumed to do no further harm. So
> industry is encouraged to dot the landscape with sources of pollution
> that collectively begin to overwhelm the biosphere but which are
> individually within acceptable limits. As a result the entire planet
> has become polluted.
>
> 3. TOXICOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY
>
> The science of numerical risk assessment is based on the premise that
> we can calculate a chemical's impact on the health of living things.
> Risk assessors do this by measuring the toxicity of individual
> chemicals on individual species -- usually rats, mice and other small
> mammals. There are at least 70,000 synthetic chemicals being used in
> commerce today (up from 40,000 in 1991). Risk assessment considers the
> toxicity of an individual pollutant acting alone -- when in reality
> each chemical is acting in concert with a myriad of other chemicals in
> the environment.
>
> This poses a huge problem -- studying multiple chemical exposures is
> very costly and time-consuming. It would require 33 million
> experiments just to learn something about the effects of 25 different
> chemicals on a single species over a short period of time (13 weeks).
> A similar study of just 1% of the 70,000 chemicals in commerce would
> require 10E210 experiments (that is, 10 with 210 zeroes behind it).
> Trillions upon trillions upon trillions of experiments -- you can see
> that science as we know it is not prepared to tackle this problem. On
> the other hand, the risk-assessment solution is easy: Just ignore
> multiple chemical exposures.
>
> 4. INADEQUATE DATA
>
> Industry's capacity for inventing new chemicals has overwhelmed the
> regulatory system's ability to study their potential harms. The
> chemical industry is introducing at least 1700 new chemicals into
> commerce each year.[4] The U.S. National Toxicology Program conducts
> assessments on just 10 to 20 substances per year. At this rate we are
> falling at least 90 years behind in our knowledge each year that
> passes. A study by the National Research Council in 1997 concluded
> that we lack even minimal toxicity information for 70% of the most
> worrisome chemicals -- those that are manufactured in high volume and
> are already suspected of harming the environment.
>
> The risk-assessment solution: If you don't have data on the toxicity
> of a substance, assume the risk is ZERO. Just ignore the problem.
> Here, reverse onus plays an important role in putting the burden of
> proof on industry to collect and reveal data on new chemicals prior to
> their general release or manufacture.
>
> 5. FORMATION OF CHEMICAL MIXTURES AND BYPRODUCTS
>
> The nature of industrial chemistry is messy. When you mix chemicals
> under diverse industrial circumstances you inevitably produce new and
> unexpected byproducts. Joe Thornton gives three examples of how we are
> flying blind:
>
> a) Paper manufacturing. The effluent from pulp mills contain over 300
> organochlorine byproducts; including dioxins, furans, phenols,
> benzenes, thiophenes, methyl-sulfones, methanes, ethanes, acids and
> PCBs. We have only identified 3 to 10% of the organically bound
> chlorine in pulp effluent. In other words, we are 90-97% ignorant of
> what is coming out of the pipe.
>
> b) Incineration. Incinerator emissions are estimated to contain over
> 1,000 products of incomplete combustion (complete combustion would
> reduce the fuel to carbon dioxide and water). Yet we have identified
> only 40-60% of these chemical effluents.
>
> c) Pesticide manufacture. Byproducts account for almost 20% of DDT
> manufacture by weight. Many of these byproducts have never even been
> identified.
>
> We don't know the names, structures or toxicity of many of the
> chemical byproducts formed in industrial processes. Even though we
> phased out purposeful manufacture of PCBs they -- and dioxins, an
> unwanted byproduct -- are still being introduced into the environment
> as side-effects of chlorine chemistry. To prevent global contamination
> with dioxin, we would need to phase out the whole class of
> organochlorines.
>
> 6. POLLUTION CONTROL AND DISPOSAL
>
> End-of-pipe pollution control and disposal technologies do little to
> prevent global environmental contamination. If you manufacture a
> substance that breaks down slowly and tends to accumulate in living
> things, it will eventually spread throughout the living world.
> Scrubbers, filters, precipitators, incinerators, and landfills are all
> just ways of temporarily moving a substance from one location or form
> to another (a shell-game). In the end, everything that persists will
> disperse into the air, water, land and living things and people will
> be affected. Landfills leak, incinerators generate toxic ash and gas,
> and even the best pollution controls are never 100% effective.
>
> Thornton helps us realize that we are foolish to try to control
> chemicals with the end-of-the-pipe risk-assessment approach. Instead,
> we can use the precautionary principle and acknowledge that:
>
> a) Some chemicals don't belong in the environment (zero discharge) and
> are best regulated away as entire classes of compounds;
>
> b) With the right combination of carrots and sticks as motivation,
> industry can find clean technologies (clean production); and
>
> c) The burden of proof (aka "reverse onus") can be placed on the
> industries that want to introduce new chemicals -- to show that they
> have done their best to understand the consequences of their actions
> -- thus motivating them to innovate and develop clean technologies.
> No data? No market.
>
> ==========
>
> * Tim Montague is Associate Director of Environmental Research
> Foundation. He holds an M.S. degree in ecology from University of
> Wisconsin-Madison and lives in Chicago.
>
> [1] http://www.gsenet.org/library/11gsn/2005/gs050530.4.html
>
> [2] See http://www.gsenet.org/library/11gsn/2005/gs050530.7.html and
> http://www.gsenet.org/library/11gsn/2005/gs050420.13.html and
> http://www.gsenet.org/library/11gsn/2003/gs030108.7.html and
> http://www.gsenet.org/library/11gsn/2004/gs040302.13.html
> http://www.gsenet.org/library/11gsn/2002/gs020730.7.html
>
> [3] http://www.gsenet.org/library/11gsn/2003/gs030108.7.html
>
> [4] See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pma/newchemicals.xls
> and http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat3/151661.pdf
>
> [5] Joe Thornton, "Beyond Risk: An Ecological Paradigm to Prevent
> Global Chemical Pollution" INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND
> ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Vol. 6 (2000) pgs. 318-330. Available at
> http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=536 And see Rachel's
> #704, which reviews Thornton's book, Pandora's Poison.
>
> [6] International Joint Commission. FIFTH BIENNIAL REPORT ON GREAT
> LAKES WATER QUALITY. Windsor, ON, Canada, 1990. Available here:
> http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/pdf/ID603.pdf
>
> [7] Mary O'Brien, MAKING BETTER ENVIRONMENTAL DECISIONS; AN ALTERNATIVE TO
> RISK ASSESSMENT (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2000). ISBN: 0262650533
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS
> Environmental Research Foundation
> P.O. Box 160
> New Brunswick, N.J. 08903
> Fax (732) 791-4603; E-mail: erf@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> SUBSCRIPTIONS
>
> Subscriptions are free. To subscribe, send E-mail to
> listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with the words
> SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-NEWS YOUR FULL NAME in the message.
>
> SPANISH EDITION
>
> The Rachel newsletter is also available in Spanish; to learn how to
> subscribe in Spanish, send the word AYUDA in an E-mail message to
> info@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> BACK ISSUES IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH
>
> All back issues are on the web at: http://www.rachel.org in text and
> PDF formats.
>
> COPYRIGHT NOTICE
>
> Permission to reprint Rachel's is hereby granted to everyone, though
> we ask that you not change the contents and we ask that you provide
> proper attribution.
>
> In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 this material is
> distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
> interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes.
>
> Some of this material may be copyrighted by others. We believe we are
> making "fair use" of the material under Title 17, but if you choose to
> use it for your own purposes, you will need to consider "fair use" in
> your own case. --Peter Montague, editor
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Gary N. Greenberg, MD MPH Sysop / Moderator Occ-Env-Med-L MailList
> GNGreenberg@xxxxxxxxx http://occhealthnews.net
>
> Recent change (4/05): Only mail addressed to
> OCC-ENV-MED-L@xxxxxxxxxxx will be broadcast to the forum. Please update
> your
> addressbooks.
> *************************************************************
>
> Rich Murray, MA Room For All rmforall@xxxxxxxxxxx 505-501-2298
> 1943 Otowi Road Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 USA
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages
> group with 185 members, 1,177 posts in a public, searchable archive
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1165
> short review: research on aspartame (methanol, formaldehyde, formic acid)
> toxicity: Murray 2005.06.23 rmforall
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1071
> research on aspartame (methanol, formaldehyde, formic acid) toxicity:
> Murray
> 2004.04.29 rmforall
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1143
> methanol (formaldehyde, formic acid) disposition: Bouchard M et al, full
> plain text, 2001: substantial sources are degradation of fruit pectins,
> liquors, aspartame, smoke: Murray 2005.04.02 rmforall
>
> Fully 11% of aspartame is methanol-- 1,120 mg aspartame in 2 L diet
> soda,
> almost six 12-oz cans, gives 123 mg methanol (wood alcohol). If 30% of
> the methanol is turned into formaldehyde, the amount of formaldehyde is 18
> times the USA EPA limit for daily formaldehyde in drinking water, 2 mg in
> 2
> L water.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1164
> artificial sweetener sales soar, stevia and tagatose available: Murray
> 2005.03.31 rmforall
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1152
> reply to Ferne Hudson, Tate & Lyle PLC, re Splenda (sucralose) policy:
> Murray 2005.02.08 rmforall
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1122
> UN FAO & WHO approve Steviol glycosides as sweetener June 2004,
> imports to UK no longer blocked: Martini: Murray 2004.10.17 rmforall
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1084
> 26 stevia safety abstracts since 1993: aspartame vs stevia debate on
> alt.support.diabetes, George Schmidt, OD: Murray 2004.05.25 rmforall
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1131
> genotoxicity of aspartame in human lymphocytes 2004.07.29 full plain text,
> Rencuzogullari E et al, Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey 2004 Aug:
> Murray
> 2004.11.06 rmforall
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1088
> Murray, full plain text & critique: chronic aspartame in rats affects
> memory, brain cholinergic receptors, and brain chemistry, Christian B,
> McConnaughey M et al, 2004 May: 2004.06.05 rmforall
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1067
> eyelid contact dermatitis by formaldehyde from aspartame, AM Hill & DV
> Belsito, Nov 2003: Murray 2004.03.30 rmforall
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1155
> continuing aspartame debate in British Medical Journal, John Biffra, Bob
> Dowling, Nick Finer, Ian J Gordon: Murray 2005.02.09 rmforall
> *************************************************************


This sounds good but who is going to pay for that (and I mean in terms of
coin)?
People buy the cheapest products available.. the manufacturer has to adapt
to that somehow... if you pay cheap you get cheap.

All the new research for alternative methods and the technology will cost
lots of money and in the end every single consumer will have to pay that. I
am just not sure people are really willing to do this- especially because
the risks are actually sounding bigger than they really are. There is a lot
of hysteria when it comes to food contaminants out of some chemical factory
as well.. however the main health problem is not food contaminants, its food
composition.

I am not saying contaminants are not a problem, but I would like to see it
compared to other health threats..


.

Relevant Pages