1. William Roberson
    April 26, 2015 @ 2:08 pm

    More than 80,000 synthetic chemicals are registered for use today with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). How many of these are actively used is hotly debated. In fact, the EPA cannot even nail it down—they estimate anywhere from 9,000-15,000. And, roughly 3,000 qualify as “high production volume” (HPV) – meaning more than a million pounds of each one are produced in or imported into the United States every year.

    No basic toxicity information is publicly available for 43 percent of the HPV chemicals and full information on toxicity is publicly available for only 7 percent.

    Allow me to reiterate because it’s so mind boggling: Almost half of the chemicals that we are using in difficult to imagine amounts, almost half, have NO testing data at all on basic toxicity???? And, only SEVEN PERCENT have a full set of BASIC test data???

    In addition, the toxicity information we have is a chemical-by-chemical assessment. Well enough on paper, but we are not exposed to chemicals one-by-one. We are exposed to chemicals in a soup-like fashion and every one of us has our own individual recipe. Given the enormous mixtures we are exposed to daily, there is no credible, scientific way to test for health impacts and we keep adding more ingredients (2,000-3,000 a year to be kind of exact).

    International authorities agree that six basic tests are necessary for a minimum understanding of a chemical’s toxicity. For each chemical, the basic set of tests costs about $205,000. It would cost the chemical industry less than $427 million to fill all of the basic screening set data gaps for the high production volume chemicals. $427 million sounds like a lot of money to you and I, and the chemical industry says it’s completely unfeasible to consider doing all of these tests; it costs too much; it would paralyze them and stunt progress. But, consider this – $427 million only represents 0.2% of the total annual sales of the top 100 U.S. chemical companies. It is a drop in the bucket to them and; thus, utterly outrageous that the tests have not been performed. (momsrising.org)


  2. Mark Follett
    April 26, 2015 @ 6:06 pm

    From the very beginning, Congress got it entirely backward. TSCA requires the federal government (EPA) to evaluate chemicals (new and existing) for safety and efficacy. EPA does not, and never has had the resources to do this job in a timely and adequate manner. The EU (European Union), on the other hand, puts the burden of proof on industry to demonstrate both the safety and efficacy of chemicals that are to be introduced, or are already introduced, into the environment. The cost to industry would be miniscule compared to their profits. The Industry doesn’t like it, but it’s either comply or leave. Shouldn’t this be the approach we take also?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *