The Kid Safe Chemicals Act — New Hope or Pipe Dream?

The Kid Safe Chemicals Act (KSCA), introduced last year into Congress, appears to show little hope of passing. Yet the risks our children face from toxic substances in our children’s toys and baby care products is not slowing. Can we make a difference in protecting children from untested chemicals?

Babies are born pre-polluted with as many as 300 industrial chemicals in their bodies when they enter the world.

“We’ve learned that babies and small children are more vulnerable to the effects of toxins and chemical substances…”

This staggering fact seems to speak more of science fiction than reality. And yet it is the situation we face today. Alone, it is enough reason to support any legislation that promises to change the way that chemicals are currently regulated and distributed among consumer products.

But there is more.

As parents, we have learned that we can no longer simply go to the store and buy whatever suits our fancy. We’ve learned that we live in a world of dangers. We’ve learned that babies and small children are more vulnerable to the effects of toxins and chemical substances, and that we quite simply cannot trust that what we buy is safe.

Why?

Because we are paranoid? Because we want to find fault where there is none?

Not quite. It’s because our trust has been broken. For many of us, to put it bluntly, it’s because we’ve been burned.

You know of which I speak, dear readers. Whether you’re a mom who found out that her entire stock of sippy cups was laced with Bisphenol-A, or a dad furious to discover that vaccines meant to protect his child may have contributed to her slow speech development, or simply a parent who has reacted in wonderment and frustration to ongoing news reports of the latest chemical threat, we parents have learned not to trust.

Is there hope for a brighter future?

Seeking Faith in the US EPA

Many of us have reached the conclusion that the EPA, like the CPSC and the FDA, has interests aligning more with that of corporate lobbyists than that of the health of American people. But certain members of Congress, as well as non-partisan investigative groups, still hold hope that government regulatory agencies can be held to their purpose.

“Manufacturers of most chemical substances are not required under current law to supply human or environmental toxicity information before selling their products to the public…”

Recently the Government Accountability Office, an investigative branch of the US Congress, issued a statement targeting the EPA and its toxic chemical assessment as a high risk area of government, “susceptible to high levels of waste, fraud, and abuse.”

The GAO noted that, of the 20,000 chemicals that have been allowed into US commerce by the EPA, only 200 have been evaluated for safety. The EPA has assessed only nine chemicals in the last three years.

Staggering as that figure is, an additional 60,000 chemicals, originally approved in 1976 with little or no data to support their safety, are also currently allowed in consumer products manufactured in the US.

One example of a chemical currently not under ban by the EPA? Asbestos.

KSCA Dies In Committee

In recognition of the lack of proper oversight for chemicals of unknown safety, as well as ongoing reports by independent scientific bodies of known risks from chemicals such as Bisphenol-A and perchlorate, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Represenatives Hilda Solis (D-CA)and Henry Waxman (D-CA) introduced the Kid Safe Chemical Act (KSCA) last year.

The proposed Act, H.R. 6100 and S.3040, begins:

Congress finds that-

1. The incidence of some diseases and disorders that have been linked to chemical exposures are on the rise;
2. The metabolism, physiology, and exposure patterns of developing fetuses, infants, and children to toxic chemicals differ from those of adults, which makes children more vulnerable than adults to the harmful effects of exposure to some synthetic chemicals;
3. Unlike manufacturers of pharmaceuticals and pesticides, manufacturers of most chemical substances are not required under current law to supply human or environmental toxicity information before selling their products to the public;
4. Consequently, the vast majority of chemicals used in commercial products have never had any Federal review to evaluate potential toxicity of the products to infants, children, developing fetuses, or adults; [emphasis mine]

The Government Accountability Office has declared the EPA’s existing toxic assessment program “at risk of becoming obsolete.”

The KSCA attempts to remedy this by requiring that companies test and prove that all new and existing untested chemicals are safe for infants and children.

Yet, for all its potential benefit to the health of America’s children, our children, the bill quickly died in committee when it was introduced in May of 2008. Senator Lautenberg has announced his plans to reintroduce the bill this year.

However, chemical industry lobbyist groups are already on the offensive, lobbying key congressional democrats and declaring the bill unnecessary, with its requirements proposing an undue burden on business during a time of economic crisis.

Safe Chemical Regulation Already Underway Globally

An interesting parallel can be seen in the use of lead in paints, even now a serious threat to our children due to the millions of interiors painted with commonly available (yet lethal) lead paints. The hazards of lead were well known in the 1920’s and France, Belgium and Austria all banned the use of lead in paint in the 1930’s. Yet due to the power of business to sway public opinion and political action, lead paint was not banned in the U.S. until 1971, nearly forty years after its ban in Europe.

Our children continue to pay for this delay as lead paint remains in the layers of many homes built before 1970, continuing to poison through lead chips and dust. The concern is so great that most states have laws requiring that babies and small children be tested regularly for lead poisoning.

photo credit: mollivan_jon

Now industry groups are claiming that chemicals regulation would place undue burden upon industry. Similar to the timing of lead regulation, it’s interesting to note that, existing more stringent regulation already exists in Europe. As such any added burden by U.S. regulation might simply be that of the inability to continue to sell banned chemicals here in the U.S.

The European chemical regulation law, REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical substances) requires manufacturers and importers to submit safety information to a central database run by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). The ECHA will help coordinate the evaluation of suspicious chemicals and make their database available to the public for personal use.

REACH (EC 1907/2006) went into force in June 2007 and was described as the most important EU legislation in 20 years. Like the proposed KSCA, it puts the onus on businesses to prove that the chemicals they use are safe.

Similarly, existing laws and processes in Canada involve systematized cataloging of all chemicals in use or proposed for use by industry, a practice not required of the EPA under current law. Other telling contrasts between Canadian and European law and current U.S. regulation are differences such as:

• When deciding whether or not a chemical poses an “unreasonable risk”, the EPA is required under law to consider the costs of controlling that chemical. Stated differently, the EPA is urged to consider chemicals safe if the cost of regulating them might propose a burden. European and Canadian laws contain no such aspects.
• When deciding how to regulate a chemical considered to pose health risks, the EPA is required under law to chose the “least burdensome” requirement available. Canadian and European law allows consideration of cost factors, but poses no such requirements favoring industry.

While some critics feel that the EU’s REACH regulations could prove costly and debilitating to the European economy, others cite such regulations as necessary long-term investments. In fact, it was precisely lack of regulation of industry that caused the current economic downturn in the U.S., a point commonly noted.

Toxic Substance Control a Possible Reality?

“Will we allow forty years to pass before we follow Europe in regulating and protecting our children from chemical substances…?”

Will we allow forty years to pass before we follow Europe in regulating and protecting our children from chemical substances, as we did in delaying lead regulation until nearly a century after its dangers were known?

According to the Dake Page, congressional staffers in Washington label the KSCA as “not doable,” and even proponents recognize that its passing is not viable, although the Environmental Working Group continues to push for support.

To parents like myself, these admissions by a government we entrust to protect our children are inconceivable and even terrifying.

What must we do to get the attention of our representatives and achieve some future faith that our health and that of our children will be held as a sacred and highest priority? Culturally and philosophically, it seems a no brainer. But in a wounded system such as ours, the logic is circuituous and incomprehensible.

I do believe that, in addition to being thankful for organizations such as the EWG and representatives such as the 3 authors and 17 co-sponsors of the Kid Safe Chemicals Act, there is something to be done to help move Congress along toward supporting this bill and protecting our children from unregulated chemicals and toxic substances.

Tomorrow, I’ll be posting a list of actions you can take to support the bill, highlighting members of Congress vital to its future. Please subscribe to receive my guide to what you can do to help as soon as its published!

To learn more about how polluters and the chemical industries wage public relations wars to prevent regulation of their products, I highly recommend Doubt is Their Product (aff) by David Michaels, former Secretary of Energy for Environment, Safety and Health. It’s been a real eye opener on how to know the truth about what’s happening behind the scenes.

Please let me know how you feel about government regulations. Is there hope? Do you have faith that your children are safe or can be safe in the future?

With gratitude for your thoughts and your good conscience,

Mama Hope

Love this article? Give it a tweet!