LETTER OF PRINCIPLES FOR TOXIC CHEMICAL REGULATORY REFORM
To the Obama transition government
Dear President-Elect Obama,
Congratulations on your victory in the election for president of the
United States. We look forward to the positive changes you plan on
making, and send you this letter to offer our support in that
endeavor, especially for the urgently needed reform of our chemical
regulatory policy.
Recent reports about industry influence and possible interference with
our chemical regulatory policy on chemicals at the FDA, EPA and other
agencies threaten the confidence of all consumers about American
products, and about our government’s role in protecting health. As we
are sure you know, storms of controversy over chemicals in everything
from shower curtains and lipstick, to baby bottles, infant formula,
canned food, cars, toys and even pet food have increasingly unnerved
parents and anyone concerned about public health.
Though its effects may not be as obvious, the deregulation of the
chemical industry has hurt the United States just as much as the
deregulation of Wall Street, with effects likely to last generations.
Scientists, physicians, health advocates, worker organizations, parent
groups, health-affected groups and many others view fundamental reform
to 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 are
often hidden, though they contribute significantly to reduced worker
productivity, increased hospital costs, more expensive health
insurance, and greater burdens on businesses for hazardous waste
storage, disposal, and clean-up fees. Uncounted in the conventional
cost-benefit analysis of our chemical regulatory policies is the price
we pay for children with developmental disabilities or the toll on
families with chemical exposure-linked illness, not to mention eco-
system impacts, made worse by global warming.
Mounting scientific studies link chemical exposure to human illness
and unnecessary disabilities and chronic conditions. The most
vulnerable include children, women, and communities of color and those
already stressed by depressed economic conditions and diminished
access to health care and information. Spikes in rates of illness
linked to chemical exposure include: obesity, diabetes, thyroid
disease, childhood cancers, breast cancer, prostate cancer, heart
disease, asthma, neurodevelopmental problems, learning disabilities in
children that persist throughout life and other effects. Although
chemical exposure knows no boundaries, communities of color located
around chemical manufacturing areas and whose geographic location
receives chemical drift from applications elsewhere are at particular
risk.
Tragically, these preventable illnesses and health effects linked to
chemical exposure are on the rise, and the effects of some chemical
exposure effects can last for generations. Scientists, physicians,
health advocates, worker organizations, parent groups, health-affected
groups and many others view fundamental reform to current chemical
laws 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 Corpus
Christie, Texas, agricultural communities in California, North
Carolina, Washington, and Florida and elsewhere are suffering from
chemical contamination. Arctic Indigenous communities are among the
most highly exposed populations in the world. The Arctic has become a
hemispheric sink for long-lasting chemical contaminants that travel
long distances on oceanic and atmospheric currents. These chemicals
accumulate up the food chain in fish, wildlife and peoples of the
north.
Harm from chemical exposure from U.S. based and other chemical
corporations is not limited to the U.S. Despite efforts by the
international community to identify the most dangerous chemicals and
phase them out, the U.S. government has obstructed this movement and
has lost credibility with an international community suffering from
the health effects of insidious chemical exposure caused,
significantly, by U.S. corporations and their foreign allies. Ongoing
efforts of the U.S. government to impede and obstruct major
international policy advances such as the Stockholm Treaty and REACH
have had serious economic and political consequences.
The opportunity to eliminate toxic chemical exposure and build a new
green economy that supports clean production of safe consumer goods is
now at hand. By designing new, safer chemicals, products, and green
production systems, American businesses will protect people’s health
and create healthy, sustainable jobs, and enhance our ability to
compete in the international marketplace. Some leading companies are
already on this path and the workers and neighboring communities
benefit. They are creating safe products and new, green jobs by using
clean, innovative technologies that benefit public health, the
environment and the bottom line. But transforming entire markets will
require policy change.
Please consider these five steps to improve the health and well being
of Americans, to protect future generations, promote industry
innovation and technological superiority in designing safer chemicals,
products and manufacturing processes, reduce our dependence on foreign
oil, and reward businesses that protect workers and lead the way to a
new, green energy economy that will benefit all Americans.
1. Hire and Gather the Best and the Brightest for your Toxics
Regulatory Team
* Deploy thoughtful leaders on: chemical exposure and environmental
health, scientific and common sense solutions to the toxic chemical
contamination problem, innovations in business and industry with Green
Chemistry development, and other innovative thinkers to advise the
administration on toxic chemical exposure as a variable in all
domestic and foreign policy as well as on new appointments to agencies
and departments relevant to environmental health. One example would be
forming a task force on chemical regulatory reform or some other
multi-stakeholder process to help expedite immediate action. These
innovative thinkers should advise the administration on toxic chemical
exposure as a variable in all domestic and foreign policy as well as
on new appointments to agencies and departments relevant to
environmental health and have no financial conflicts of interest. It
will be important for this group to see the interconnectivity of
issues inherent to a healthy and prosperous future.
* Set a public interest research agenda that coordinates green
chemistry with green energy and green engineering technologies being
developed and supported.
* The administration should adopt the position that the right to a
clean and healthy environment is an inalienable right that will be
protected by the courts.
2. U.S. Chemicals Policy Must Adhere to Principles and Guidelines for Ethical Chemical Regulatory Reform
* U.S. residents and all peoples have a fundamental right to
protection from exposure to toxic substances, including from chemicals
and nuclear radiation, in our environment and our bodies. The purpose
of the U.S. chemicals regulatory policy must be to protect us from
these exposures, while preventing the export of toxic substances that
could harm other countries.
* U.S. chemical regulatory policy must understand and implement the
Precautionary Principle so that we may finally join the modern
chemical policies of other countries around the world. The
Precautionary Principle forms the foundation of the European Union’s
REACH law on chemicals and international treaties such as the
Stockholm Convention. This foundation for U.S. chemical policy
mandates adequate scientific evidence that will help to insure that a
substance is safe before it is allowed to be introduced in the
marketplace.
* U.S. chemical regulatory policy must provide remedies for the
injustice of unequal environmental protection based on race that has
exposed communities of color to significant levels of toxic pollution.
Such remedies must include a legal standard that requires a safe
distance between a residential population and a chemical facility and
a private right of action against a federal, state, or local
regulatory agency whose decision or action results in a racially
disproportionate pollution burden.
* In addition to aligning with REACH, U.S. chemical regulatory policy
must regain U.S. leadership by respecting the intentions of
international agreements, including Strategic Approach to
International Chemicals Management (SAICM), the Stockholm Convention,
Rotterdam Convention, Basel Convention, the Montreal Protocol, and a
new global free standing legally binding agreement on mercury and
other similar substances of concern.
3. Revamp the Chemical Evaluation Process
* A gross lack of knowledge currently exists in the U.S. about the
data on chemical substances produced, imported, exported, and used in
the U.S. This serious data deficiency demands immediate adoption of a
comprehensive process of identifying and assessing critical
information for all substances before they can be produced, marketed
or allowed for continued use. Of utmost priority art chemicals that
are suspected of being mutagens, carcinogens, reproductive or
neurodevelopmental toxicants, endocrine disruptors, and persistent
bioaccumulative 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 to
detect.
* Evaluation of the chemicals must be on the basis of their inherent
hazards and toxicity, including threats of harm to workers who make
them, the communities where they are made, the communities where the
chemicals and chemical-induced products are used, disposed or
destroyed, and where there is danger for impacting the health of the
general public, now and in the future, as in the case of neurotoxins
and many carcinogens, which can take years to trigger or manifest
effects.
* Chemical evaluation processes also must be based on complete
transparency and mandated data collection from the corporations that
make the chemicals, removing “business security” shields from
manufacturers of suspected dangerous substances. Health and safety
information should not be considered confidential business information
and a “No Data, No Market” rule should be implemented and enforced.
* Suspected materials must be phased out more rapidly where safer
substitutes are already available.
* No U.S. government agency should be allowed to shield chemical
corporations from being mandated to provide information under the
guise of “national security,” in regard to chemical production
facilities or transportation of these chemicals.
* Evaluation of chemicals must be conducted by U.S. government
scientists and academic colleagues in a manner that that upholds the
integrity of the evaluation, with public financial support as well as
political support for independent research and protection for speaking
freely about their findings. Scientists must be expected to report
unbiased results, free from political and industry-driven influences,
with all findings subject to fully transparent, independent peer
review. Scientists must have support and protections to be able to
conduct independent scientific study and speak freely about their
findings — the “gag order” on U.S. federal scientists must be removed
immediately.
* Immediate action to pursue permanent Chemical Security legislation
that would require thousands of facilities, including all water
treatment plants to require the use of safer chemical alternatives and
processes. Millions of people inside the U.S. are at risk if an
unintentional or intentional (terrorist attacks) industrial chemical
accident were to occur. The framework required includes improving
standards for review of safer and more secure alternatives, worker
involvement, and crucial government accountability. One immediate
concern is the need for a structured review of federal facilities that
pose the danger of an off-site chemical emergency release. The
standards for these reviews must be focused on “alternatives
assessment” rather than “risk assessment.”
4. Reform “Stakeholder” Influence in Decision-Making
* U.S. chemical policy regulators, including non-scientist appointees
and staff members, must be completely free of ties to the chemical
industry or other entities that would attempt to influence their
decisions or impact the integrity of chemical evaluations. Regulators
may consult with the chemical industry, but we need a change from what
has become a conventional U.S. process in which the chemical industry
dictates chemical regulatory policy and writes relevant legislation.
The preferred “stakeholders” in this process must be the people of the
United States, not the chemical corporations.
* The people of the United States need to have access and the ability
to participate in the chemical evaluation process, which requires
resources for capacity building and access to expertise to represent
their interests.
* The Toxic Release Inventory rule and other tools for industry
transparency?must be strengthened, and the public’s right to know
chemical data should be guaranteed. There must be Executive and
legislative support for mandating complete transparency for all data
regarding chemical exposure in communities, including pesticide use
data.
* Toxic chemical exposure must also be considered an Environmental
Justice issue, and previously ignored and disenfranchised communities
of color and of modest economic standing must be brought into the
process of identifying vulnerable populations and implementing
culturally respectful policies for empowerment to become safe from
chemical exposure. This can only be accomplished through dedicated
resources for capacity building at the community level.
* Resources must be immediately directed toward environmental
monitoring of air, water, and soil where chemical exposure is
suspected in order to prevent, not just manage, exposure to workers
and communities.
* When toxic chemical exposure is identified, immediate action and
resources must be available to halt the exposure and protect
communities, especially children, honoring the cultural integrities of
each community.
* Assessment of toxic chemical exposures must be an immediate mandated
component of all relief efforts for communities in times of disaster,
with protection mitigations in place to prevent additional and new
exposures (as in the example of the FEMA trailers) compounding
existing tragedy.
5. Create Economic Strength and Strategy Via Toxic Chemical Exposure Protections
* A program of incentives must be developed to support the efforts of
chemical corporations, the auto and oil industries, and other relevant
industries to develop less harmful substitutions for their products.
No new products should be allowed into the marketplace without
adequate scientific study on health effects. The responsibility must
be on the producer to demonstrate no harm. Regulatory and financial
barriers for companies seeking to develop and use less toxic products,
move away from reliance on petrochemicals, and reduce resource
depletion in production, including use of water, should be addressed,
and incentives provided for those corporations that demonstrate
significant progress insuring that their workers, communities, and
customers are protected.
* “Polluter pays,” reverse onus, and other precautionary policies, in
addition to the Rio Principles should be adopted as a foundation for
U.S. environmental protections and for restoring confidence in U.S.
corporations, their standing in the community, and the products they
make. Re-establish support and enforcement of Superfund policies.
* Support programs for farmers to transition to safer, less toxic
means of food production must be instituted.
* Integrate Toxic Chemical Exposure Issues Throughout U.S. Government
Agencies and Policies
* EPA must partner with the Centers for Disease Control and immediate
resources need to be made available for biomonitoring and public
health surveys of communities where chemical exposure impact is
suspected. Monitoring should also include biota and human tissue
contamination with the intention of tracing the sources of
contamination. These agencies must develop and use a protocol for the
evaluation of chemical exposure impact that is based on the
Precautionary Principle
* Intentional dosing of human beings, especially children, with
pesticides and other known toxic chemicals in experiments is unethical
and must be prohibited.
* Chemical contamination knows no political boundaries. Testing of
imported foods and other products for chemical contamination must be
reinstated.
* The U.S. government must make it illegal for U.S. corporations to
dump toxic waste or sell banned or restricted products outside of the
country. U.S. corporations must be accountable and responsible for
harm that befalls communities at home and overseas from chemical
exposure caused by these corporations chemical manufacture, use
(including in consumer products), and disposal. The U.S. must become a
party to the Basel Treaty and uphold its principles.
* The U.S. government must define toxic substance hazard as a variable
in all international trade, human rights, and other agreements and
encourage and support other nations to reduce and eliminate toxic
substance exposure.
* Toxic chemical exposure must be taken into account for all U.S.
policies, including stimulus for the economy,?job creation, the
transition away from petrochemical fuels, education, and other urgent
changes in U.S. economic and social enterprises.
* A timeline must be set for putting a modern chemical regulatory
process and policy in place; time is of the essence with the health of
hundreds of millions of people at stake.
Thank you.
The undersigned groups are eager to assist with designing and building
support for transformational change to the U.S. chemical regulatory
system and offer our recommendations as enthusiastic partners of the
President-Elect’s new administration to achieve necessary and timely
change.
Sincerely,
Laura Abulafia, MHS, Director, Environmental Health Initiative,
American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
(Formerly AAMR)
Martha Dina Arguello, Executive Director, Physicians for Social
Responsibility
Ruth Berlin, LCSW-C, Executive Director, Maryland Pesticide Network
Joan Blades, President and Co-founder, MomsRising.org
Arlene Blum, Executive Director, Green Science Policy Institute
Lin Kaatz Chary, Great Lakes Green Chemistry Network
Elizabeth Crowe, Director, Kentucky Environmental Foundation
Kathleen Curtis, Policy Director, Clean New York
Carol Dansereau, Executive Director, Farm Worker Pesticide Project,
Washington
Joe DiGangi, International Pops Elimination Network
Tracey Easthope, Environmental Health Director, Michigan Ecology
Center
Jay Feldman, Executive Director, Beyond Pesticides
Christopher Gavigan, CEO, Healthy Child, Healthy World
Lois Gibbs, Executive Director, Center for Health, Environment and
Justice
Dori Gilels, Executive Director, Women’s Voices for the Earth
Kathryn Gilje, Executive Director, Pesticide Action Network North
America
Monique Harden, Co-director and attorney, Advocates for Environmental
Human Rights
Amanda Hawes, attorney
Rick Hind, Legislative Director, Greenpeace
Dr. J. William Hirzy, Vice-President NTEU Chapter 280 (EPA HQ
Professionals Union), and Chemist in Residence, American University
John Kepner, Project Director, Beyond Pesticides
Bettie D. Kettell, RN Durham, Maine
Elise Miller, MEd, Executive Director, Institute for Children’s
Environmental Health
Pam Miller, Biologist and Director of Alaska Community Action on
Toxics
Mark A. Mitchell, MD, MPH, President, Connecticut Coalition for
Environmental Justice
Peter Montague, PhD, Environmental Research Foundation
Suzanne Murphy, Executive Director, Worksafe
Janet Nudelman, Director of Program and Policy Breast Cancer Fund
Judith Robinson, Director of Programs, Environmental Health Fund
Mike Schade, PVC Campaign Coordinator, The Center for Health,
Environment and Justice (CHEJ)
Ted Shettler, MD, MPH, Science and Environmental Health Network
Lynn Thorp, National Campaigns Campaigns Coordinator, Clean Water
Action
Laurie Valeriano, Policy Director, Washington Toxics Coalition
Nathalie Walker, Co-director and attorney, Advocates for Environmental
Human Rights
Kristen Welker-Hood, ScD MSN RN, Director, Environment and Health
Programs, Physicians for Social Responsibility
Charlotte Wells, Galveston BAYKEEPER, Texas
Resources
Contaminated without Consent www.contaminatedwithoutconsent.org
Is It In Us? isitinus.org/
The Louisville Charter www.louisvillecharter.org
Principles of Environmental Justice
ej4all.org/environmental.principles.php
http://www.ejnet.org/ej/principles.html
Scientific Consensus Statement on Environmental Agents Associated with
Neurodevelopmental Disorders Developed by the Collaborative on Health
and the Environment’s Learning and Developmental Disabilities
Initiative February 20, 2008 (revised July 1, 2008)
www.iceh.org/pdfs/LDDI/LDDIPolicyStatement.pdf
