Rachel Carson’s groundbreaking book, “Silent Spring,” shed light on the impact of toxic chemicals in our environment, led to the banning of DDT, and helped justify the creation
of the EPA. As we celebrate the 100th anniversary of her birth this year, we take a fresh look at some new trends helping to curb chemical use in products.
Some big changes are coming in the rules that regulate the chemicals used in foods and consumer products. The potential “rule makers” include more than just the usual suspects – not only are legislatures and regulatory bodies mandating increased scrutiny, but investors and customers are also demanding it.
With pressure being exerted from all sides, manufacturers are suddenly being held to a much higher standard for the safety of ingredients in their products. They are going to need to adapt – fast.
Regulations First
Since 1976, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has regulated chemicals in the U.S. TSCA first instructs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to collect data through testing of potentially hazardous substances that were introduced after 1979. If any substances are found to be hazardous, the EPA is then directed to regulate them, but without placing too much of an economic burden on innovation.
The crux of TSCA, as pointed out by a 1984 Supreme Court ruling, is that the EPA can only require testing of a substance if there is “an existing possibility of harm [and] reasonable and legitimate cause for concern.”
In other words, the EPA must prove that specific chemicals are dangerous, rather than chemical companies having to prove that they are safe. As a result, the last chemical to be banned under TSCA’s onerous process was asbestos, in 1989.
New legislation in Europe breaks from the American model, shifting that burden of proof away from regulators. Acting on the premise that sufficient safety information is lacking for 99% of the chemicals currently used, the European Union has adopted a new directive: Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), which came into force last month.
The law was proposed in 2001, first brought to the European Parliament at the end of 2005, and formally approved at the end of 2006. In contrast to TSCA, REACH requires testing of all chemicals that are produced in, or imported into, the E.U. in a volume greater than one ton.
Most importantly, producers must prove that their chemicals are safe, rather than making regulators prove that they are not.
As a February 2007 report by Innovest Strategic Value Advisors (“Cross Cutting Effects of Chemical Liability”) points out, REACH has the potential for “creating a de facto ‘blacklist’ of … as many as 1400 chemicals of very high environmental concern [that] may be subjected to a tough authorization process” and may not be approved for use if suitable substitutes are available.
Widespread Effects
Chemicals play a surprisingly large role in almost all products. The Innovest report states that chemicals make up approximately 15% of the value of new residential construction materials, 30% of sports and athletic goods, nearly 40% of toys and nearly 70% of carpets.
As the E.U., with the world’s largest combined economy, enacts REACH’s mandate in July 2008 and demands testing of all of these chemicals, the implications are huge. Manufacturing companies will be left with two options: develop products specifically for European markets (and increasingly for the other countries working on laws similar to REACH, such as Japan and South Korea, according to the Association for Sustainable and Responsible Investment in Asia); or adapt products sold in all markets to comply with the strictest new chemical laws.
Cosmetics and personal care product companies were among the first to have to cope with this issue, after a 2003 European Cosmetics Directive banned more than 1200 chemicals that are toxic, mutagenic, or known reproductive hazards.
Estee Lauder Inc. owns many international brands of cosmetics, such as Prescriptives, Clinique and M-A-C, in addition to the eco-friendly brands Origins and Aveda. The company’s corporate website partially addresses the issue, stating that with regards to two particular banned phthalates, suspected of mimicking natural hormones and causing a variety of ailments, “The Estee Lauder Companies brands … do not use either of these ingredients in our cosmetic or fragrance products.”
Orly and Revlon, on the other hand, according to an October 2006 article in the L.A. Times, have decided that all of their products sold worldwide will comply with the European rules.
Wal-Mart, the world’s largest corporation, has initiated a “Preferred Chemicals Principles” program to promote “development of more products for mother, child and the environment,” according to the company. In the first stage, Wal-Mart has requested that suppliers phase out three chemicals – two pesticides and one cleaning product ingredient – and has promised to add 17 more chemicals over two years.
Given their purchasing power we expect the demand for non-toxic substitutes will rise at the expense of suppliers that don’t develop benign alternatives.
The electronics industry was also forced to deal with European laws earlier than other sectors. Since 2006, the E.U. has been regulating the use of six toxic substances in electronic equipment – lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and two brominated organic flame retardants – under provisions of the Restriction on Use of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) law.
While many companies have been able to adapt to these new standards, the road hasn’t entirely been smooth. The Innovest study states, for example, that Apple was briefly prohibited from selling a number of products in 2006 that did not comply with RoHS. On the other hand, Sirenza Microdevices, a supplier to the electronics industry, was prescient in recognizing its potential RoHS liability. It began the transition in 2004 to ensure that all products meet the 2006 deadline, creating specially-designated RoHS versions of their products to market in Europe.
Other Forces
Corporations are being pressured by other groups as well. Investors are chiming in – the Investor Environmental Health Network (IEHN), for example, was active in the campaign that convinced
Whole Foods Market to stop selling baby bottles and other products containing bisphenol-A
and phthalates. IEHN has also participated in filing shareholder resolutions on cosmetics safety,
pesticides, PVC and other substances at many companies, including CVS, DuPont, ConAgra, Dow,
Hasbro and Bed Bath & Beyond.
In May, the international health and environmental communities added their voices; a wide-reaching study, partly funded by the World Health Organization, the National Institutes of Health and the European Environment Agency, sounded a stark call for in depth research, warning, “Toxic exposures to chemical pollutants during these windows of increased susceptibility [during pregnancy and early infancy] can cause disease and disability in infants, children, and across the entire span of human life.”
Clearly, the alarms on hazardous chemicals are going off globally. A significant percentage of the world community appears committed to safeguarding the health of all citizens. If not for the good of humankind then for the good of their bottom line, companies could not find a more auspicious moment to seriously evaluate the chemistry that goes into their products.
++++
FROM Winslow Environmental News, a SustainableBusiness.com Content Partner.
Loading...