The federal government should protect the public from dangerous chemicals
Americans should be thinking about the chemicals that they put on their bodies or ingest. Because the federal government sure isn’t.
The chemical bisphenol a is a good example. After 40 years of use as a hardening agent in plastic bottles and metal food and beverage cans, this January, the Food and Drug Administration issued a report stating that new studies had caused “some concern about the potential effects of BPA [bisphenol a] on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children.”
So, what took them so long?
Last week we learned that the FDA is taking a second look at an even more ubiquitous chemical, triclosan. You may know it as the “germ-fighting” agent in those orange-colored liquid hand soaps, but this chemical can also be found in over 140 different types of products, from toothpastes and deodorant, to towels and clothing. Probably due to its all-present nature, it is also found in the urine of 75 percent of the U.S. population.
Scientific studies indicate that there are some problems with triclosan. Some studies have linked it to cancer, liver damage and endocrine problems, and it may also increase bacteria’s resistance to antibiotics. The non-profit educational organization, the Environmental Working Group suggests that some triclosan studies have never been disclosed to the the Environmental Protection Agency.
It took a letter from Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) to the FDA this January to finally spur the FDA into action. Representative Markey was seeking information on the FDA's plans to finalize its regulation of over-the-counter topical antiseptic drug products. According to Markey’s letter, the agency has been working on the rules governing these products for a “startling” 37 years.
From the letter from Representative Markey to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg:
It takes a strong shove to get our federal regulatory bodies to do the work necessary to protect the American public.
Numerous studies have shown that hand washing with regular soap and water eliminates bacteria just as well as washing with a product containing an anti-microbial agent like triclosan, and the American Medical Association released a report in 2002 stating that “it is prudent to avoid the use of antimicrobial agents in consumer products.” Why is a product with questionable value and uncertain safety so omnipresent, and why hasn't its use been addressed sooner?
Perhaps the connection between our regulatory bodies and the industries they oversee is too strong. Consumer watchdog group Public Citizen found that the revolving door between members of Congress and lobbying organizations, often of the industries they governed while in office, is spinning fast.
A study by Public Citizen found that about 43 percent of all members of Congress who left office between 1998 and mid-2005 are now registered lobbyists.
American taxpayers spend billions of tax dollars supporting the public agencies that often protect the businesses that they are charged with supervising. As seen with triclosan, regulators often act slowly to make rules governing commercial products. Sometimes research indicating problems with these products is suppressed or overlooked, and it takes an organized public to bring safety issues to light.
The national campaign director for the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition, has three suggestions for improving chemical regulation:
Americans shouldn't have to wonder what's in their toothpaste.
The chemical bisphenol a is a good example. After 40 years of use as a hardening agent in plastic bottles and metal food and beverage cans, this January, the Food and Drug Administration issued a report stating that new studies had caused “some concern about the potential effects of BPA [bisphenol a] on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children.”
So, what took them so long?
Last week we learned that the FDA is taking a second look at an even more ubiquitous chemical, triclosan. You may know it as the “germ-fighting” agent in those orange-colored liquid hand soaps, but this chemical can also be found in over 140 different types of products, from toothpastes and deodorant, to towels and clothing. Probably due to its all-present nature, it is also found in the urine of 75 percent of the U.S. population.
Scientific studies indicate that there are some problems with triclosan. Some studies have linked it to cancer, liver damage and endocrine problems, and it may also increase bacteria’s resistance to antibiotics. The non-profit educational organization, the Environmental Working Group suggests that some triclosan studies have never been disclosed to the the Environmental Protection Agency.
It took a letter from Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) to the FDA this January to finally spur the FDA into action. Representative Markey was seeking information on the FDA's plans to finalize its regulation of over-the-counter topical antiseptic drug products. According to Markey’s letter, the agency has been working on the rules governing these products for a “startling” 37 years.
From the letter from Representative Markey to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg:
The pace of activity on the part of the FDA is especially perplexing in light of advances in science that question both the effectiveness and safety of certain antimicrobial agents, and that indicate that their widespread use may increase antibiotic resistance and have complex endocrine disrupting effects.Six months prior, a coalition of health, labor and environmental groups had petitioned the FDA to ban triclosan in non-medical products. A similar petition was submitted to the EPA in January 2010 by a group of 80 organizations.
It takes a strong shove to get our federal regulatory bodies to do the work necessary to protect the American public.
Numerous studies have shown that hand washing with regular soap and water eliminates bacteria just as well as washing with a product containing an anti-microbial agent like triclosan, and the American Medical Association released a report in 2002 stating that “it is prudent to avoid the use of antimicrobial agents in consumer products.” Why is a product with questionable value and uncertain safety so omnipresent, and why hasn't its use been addressed sooner?
Perhaps the connection between our regulatory bodies and the industries they oversee is too strong. Consumer watchdog group Public Citizen found that the revolving door between members of Congress and lobbying organizations, often of the industries they governed while in office, is spinning fast.
A study by Public Citizen found that about 43 percent of all members of Congress who left office between 1998 and mid-2005 are now registered lobbyists.
American taxpayers spend billions of tax dollars supporting the public agencies that often protect the businesses that they are charged with supervising. As seen with triclosan, regulators often act slowly to make rules governing commercial products. Sometimes research indicating problems with these products is suppressed or overlooked, and it takes an organized public to bring safety issues to light.
The national campaign director for the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition, has three suggestions for improving chemical regulation:
First, the chemical industry should be required to develop basic health and safety information for all chemicals, and make that information public.Federal regulators should be required and empowered to make and enforce tough rules for chemical use, based on all available best practices science ,and do so in a timely fashion. In addition, the public should be able to see what chemicals are in the products that they buy.
Secondly, EPA should be able to restrict, rather than further study, the relatively small group of chemicals that are already widely understood to be a problem.
Finally, for the vast majority of chemicals that will need a new scientific assessment, the latest science and real-world scenarios should be considered. Right now agencies often pretend that we're exposed to a chemical one use at a time. In the real world, people are exposed to the same chemical from multiple sources. Also, different chemicals can often act in concert against a particular part of the body.
Americans shouldn't have to wonder what's in their toothpaste.
# Posted by Kathleen : 4:01 PM
Comments:
The European Union approaches chemicals from a different perspective, called the precautionary principle. Rather than waiting decades before potential health and environmental consequences appear, they put the burden of proof on the front end. Chemicals must be shown to be safe when there is risk involved, rather than waiting for definitive proof they are a danger. This makes a lot more sense than the burden of proof being put on those who suffer the consequences because they are the guinea pigs.
A more detailed explanation is given at http://www.mindfully.org/Precaution/Precautionary-Principle-Common-Sense.htm
"When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically."
"Key elements of the principle include taking precaution in the face of scientific uncertainty; exploring alternatives to possibly harmful actions; placing the burden of proof on proponents of an activity rather than on victims or potential victims of the activity; and using democratic processes to carry out and enforce the principle-including the public right to informed consent." ...
"...there are some major loopholes in our regulations and the way they are applied. If the precautionary principle were universally applied, many toxic substances, contaminants, and unsafe practices would not be produced or used in the first place. The precautionary principle concentrates on prevention rather than cure."
Post a Comment