yet more thoughts on chemical regulation. why such concern with chemical regulation? i’ve lamented the fact that, albeit noble and good, individual change can only do so much. real, effective change (i’m talking paradigm shifts here, people) need to occur at the institutional level.
we need to change the way chemicals are regulated so that the eco-conscious don’t have to toil over which brand of natural shampoo to buy, and whether their dish soap will spur some blue-green algae.
with proper chemical regulation (and labelling standards), no-one will have to think about it. because our government and industry will protect us from harmful chemicals.
Canada’s chemical management plan (CMP) on the surface appears to be shifting the burden of proof. under the traditional biomedical model that uses epidemiological testing to determine a chemical’s safety, it is regulators (read: cash-strapped government agencies) that are responsible for proving a substance’s harm before it is subject to regulation in consumer products.
to wit:
an estimated 80 000 synthetic chemicals are used today in the United States; another 1000 or more are added each year. complete toxicological screening data are available for just 7 percent of these chemicals.
(from the breast cancer fund‘s report: state of the evidence- the connection between breast cancer and the enviroment).
that’s what happens when the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of regulators. indeed, the absence of evidence of harm is taken as evidence of absence of harm (chew on that one for a while… i know i have).
so here’s the deal with CMP. industry is now required to submit any data they have on toxicological effects of their chemicals. but they aren’t required to conduct any new testing. they must provide info that “improves, where possible, information for risk assessment…”
hmmm. there’s a reason why industry is so vehemently opposed to toxicological testing. it’s ’cause the results don’t lie: these chemicals are killing us and the environment!
so Canada has conveniently created a climate that appears to shift the burden of proof to industry, but all it amounts to is incentive for industry to know nothing. if they don’t conduct tests, they can continue to claim ignorance; the absence of evidence ensures that these chemicals continue to be in all those consumer products we all use so unproblematically.
coming up: effecting change. or, why i study what i do.
Leave a comment