Hey there, let’s unpack a story that’s been making waves in the environmental law arena. Originally shared on the Law & Political Economy Blog under the title “How Environmental Law Created a World Awash in Toxic Chemicals,” this narrative is all about the complex world of forever chemicals and the legal battles surrounding them.
The Biden Administration’s Move Against Forever Chemicals
Just this spring, the Biden administration put the final touches on two crucial rules aimed at a small group of these persistent pollutants. One rule sets drinking water standards for six forever chemicals, while the other slaps a hazardous substance label on two of the big players under the Superfund Law, known as CERCLA. These infamous chemicals, part of the vast PFAS family, are notorious for sticking around in the environment and our bodies.
Here’s the lowdown: these compounds are everywhere. We’re talking about finding them in roughly half of the nation’s tap water and throughout the environment, where they accumulate in living creatures. Coined as forever chemicals for their stubborn refusal to break down, they’ve been a part of our lives since the 1940s, prized for their ability to fend off heat, oil, and water.
Despite a slow phase-out of some PFAS chemicals in the early 2000s, these substances are still being churned out for certain products and sneak into the country through imports. And let’s not forget the thousands of other PFAS variants still being used, often without proper toxicity checks.
The Human Cost of Chemical Convenience
Now, brace yourself for this: an estimated 97% of folks in the United States have PFAS chemicals coursing through their veins. And despite years of industry assurances that these substances were harmless, we’re now seeing a laundry list of health issues tied to them, including cancer, reproductive issues, and developmental problems.
Thanks to some deep digging by journalists and legal battles, we’ve learned that big names like Dupont and 3M were aware of potential health risks for decades. And the price tag for this mess? A whopping $11 billion and counting in 2023 alone.
EPA’s Regulatory Ramp-Up
EPA Administrator Michael Regan is on a mission, making the regulation of forever chemicals a top priority across various EPA programs. But this proactive stance begs the question: How did we get here?
It turns out that our laws for regulating toxic chemicals have some serious blind spots. When the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) rolled out in 1976, it gave a free pass to PFAS chemicals already on the market, assuming they were safe without requiring any testing.
The Shortcomings of Environmental Law
The PFAS debacle is a symptom of a broader issue with environmental law over the past four decades. The shift toward risk assessment and away from precaution has left us with a toxic legacy in human tissues and ecosystems worldwide. We’re pushing past planetary boundaries, and the damage is staggering.
Consider this: pollution and toxic substances are linked to nine million premature deaths annually, dwarfing the toll of diseases like AIDS and malaria. And these numbers are likely an underestimate. For instance, lead contamination alone might be responsible for 5.5 million premature deaths each year.
Moreover, the burden of pollution and toxic exposure is not shared equally. Low- and middle-income countries bear the brunt, and within the United States, communities of color face higher levels of industrial chemicals in their bodies.
The Pitfalls of Risk Assessment
The reliance on risk assessment has been a double-edged sword. While intended to inform regulatory decisions, it has often served as a political tool to constrain agencies and delay action. The process has been slow, contentious, and, frankly, a failure from a public health perspective.
By demanding that the government prove significant harm before taking action, risk assessment has enabled the continuous introduction of new chemicals into the environment, many linked to the petrochemical industry’s diversification strategies.
Global chemical production is on a steep incline, with plastics and other chemicals flooding the market. Yet, only a fraction of these substances have undergone thorough testing.
The Long Road to Regulatory Reform
Attempts to overhaul toxic substances regulation often call for improved risk assessments. The EU has made strides with its no-data-no-market rule, but even after two decades, safety information is lacking for most chemicals sold there.
In the US, the 2016 TSCA amendments aimed to address glaring issues, but the EPA is already behind on its deadlines. At the current pace, it would take an estimated 1500 years to assess the backlog of existing chemicals.
Charting a New Course for Chemical Regulation
It’s clear that the current approach to chemical regulation is deeply flawed. We’ve seen time and again that chemicals introduced with claims of safety often lead to unforeseen harm. The crises with forever chemicals and microplastics are just the latest warnings.
Instead of trying to fix risk assessment, we need to pivot back to hazard-based regulation that respects uncertainty and errs on the side of caution. We should be quick to protect people and the environment, driving innovation toward sustainable and healthy alternatives.
In essence, it’s high time we rethink how regulation and regulatory science can promote a greener chemical industry. We need to move fast, protect the vulnerable, and remember that the real-world impacts of these substances carry both moral and legal weight. It’s about time we prioritize human health and the planet over endless debates and risk-benefit balancing acts. Let’s push for a future where our world isn’t just decarbonized but detoxified as well.
Did you miss our previous article…
https://pardonresearch.com/?p=19106