(Page 4 of 5)

The Role of the Government: What is Done and What Could Be Done

Traditionally, American law has placed the burden of proving the harm or safety of an environmental toxin on the public. The second half of the twentieth century offers many examples of the consequences of this perverse regulatory burden of proof; if we look at the regulatory history of dioxins, mercury, PCBs, and pesticides, government action began only after large numbers of children were harmed. In other words, the federal government’s current approach is “wait-and-see”: regulation usually occurs only after the damage has been done and the evidence is too obvious to ignore.

Pressure from industry has had a chilling effect on the government’s concern for children’s health. Although most people may assume that all chemicals used in commerce are safe, this is not necessarily the case. According to the EPA, ninety-three percent of the most commonly-used industrial chemicals in the US lack complete toxicity testing. Industries are unwilling to voluntarily perform toxicity tests because it costs them approximately $200,000 per chemical tested.

But failure to require human toxicity testing is not the only scenario in which the federal government has given preference to the interests of industry. Most environmental regulations are based on economic analyses and are crafted in consideration of the “best available technology” rather than on what would best protect the health of American children.

The most recent example of industry’s attempt to reduce spending on chemical regulation can be seen in the EPA’s plan to revise its Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program. Since 1988, the TRI program has required certain industries and federal facilities to provide annual reports of their toxic chemical releases. Despite the success of the program, the EPA is attempting to relax reporting requirements in order to reduce the purportedly excessive and undue financial burden that the requirements place on industry. The proposed rule changes for the TRI reporting requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act are controversial and of concern to the public health community. The changes recommended by the EPA would be detrimental to communities living near major polluters. Communities across the US rely on TRI data to accurately prepare emergency responses to accidental release of toxic chemicals. The mandatory disclosure of TRI data has also had the secondary benefit of encouraging industry to cut back on the use of many toxic chemicals. To relax reporting requirements would mean backtracking on significant progress already made, and could allow polluting industries to increase the amount of pollutants they release into the environment. Such a scenario could be potentially disastrous for the health of American children.