Since the 1940s, thousands of new chemical substances have been introduced to the marketplace with little or no review or control before hitting the shelves. Many of these chemicals have reached high volumes of production and use without government intervention or proper study of the possible adverse health and environmental impacts.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was enacted in 1976 by the EPA. TSCA was able to exert some government control over production and use decisions of chemicals. This affected the types of chemicals that could be produced and limitations on their use. TSCA does not separate chemicals into categories of "toxic" and "non-toxic". Rather it prohibits the manufacture or importation of chemicals that are not on the TSCA Inventory . At the time of enactment, 62,000 chemicals were allowed to remain on the market without testing for their effects on health or the environment. In 34 years, the EPA has only required testing of about 200 of those chemicals, and has partially regulated only five. The rest have never been fully assessed for toxic impacts on human health and the environment. This is a huge problem.
Under the current law, it is almost impossible for the EPA to take regulatory action against dangerous chemicals, even those that are known to cause cancer or other serious health effects. The EPA must prove a chemical poses an "unreasonable risk" to health or the environment before it can be regulated. The law has since received much criticism including a report done by the University of Massachusetts in 2003 which explains “The Promise and Limits of the United States Toxic Substances Control Act”. The TSCA should be reevaluated to ensure these many chemicals do not pose future risks to the environment as well as the overall health of the population.
Studies have shown that exposure to low doses of certain chemicals, particularly in the womb or during early childhood, can result in irreversible and life-long impacts on health. We now understand more about the ability of some toxic chemicals to remain in the environment and to build up in the food chain and in our bodies. We have also shown that many chemicals disturb our hormonal, reproductive, and immune systems. Many believe it is now time to give the EPA the authority to protect the public from toxic chemicals. New legislation should require all new or existing chemicals to be tested for safety and to establish safety standards for chemicals to ensure protection. The public has the right to know about the safety and use of chemicals that they come in contact with and use on a daily basis and the EPA should have the authority to protect the public from unsafe chemicals.
Making industrial chemicals safer is something we can all get behind. However, if we want safer chemicals and a safer environment then we must use nonanimal methods of testing.
ReplyDeleteCurrently, 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.
The blueprint for the development and implementation of nonanimal testing is the National Academy of Sciences report, "Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy in 2007." This report calls for a shift away from the use of animals in toxicity testing. The report also concludes that human cell- and computer-based approaches are the best way to protect human health because they allow us to understand more quickly and accurately the varied effects that chemicals can have on different groups of people. They are also more affordable and more humane.
These methods are ideal for assessing the real world scenarios such as mixtures of chemicals, which have proven problematic using animal-based test methods. And, they're the only way we can assess all chemicals on the market.