|
 Why are chemicals a health problem?
Gaps in chemicals regulations
Why do we need a chemicals policy?
Why are chemicals a health problem?
The products we use in health care, and their manufacture and disposal, result in the release of hazardous chemicals that can harm human health and the environment. Cleaners and disinfectants, phthalates in medical devices, flame retardants in furniture, formaldehyde in furniture and labs, and solvents in labs are among the chemicals to which patients and workers in health care may be exposed.
Emerging scientific research is raising the level of concern about the health impacts of chemical exposures. We now know that:
• Even small doses of chemicals can cause disease -- interfering with sexual development, disrupting hormones and causing cancer at very low levels.
• Children and developing babies are most vulnerable. (See Our Stolen Future.)
• Hundreds of synthetic chemicals are found in human breast milk and in the cord blood of babies in the womb. (See Body Burden - The Pollution in Newborns.)
• Chemicals can act like drugs in our body, disrupting systems at low levels of exposure, and potentially causing harm in combination. (See Bringing Order to Chemical Chaos.)
As chemical use has grown in our society, so too have chemical-related diseases. Cancer, asthma, birth defects, developmental disabilities, autism, endometriosis and infertility are increasingly common. Mounting scientific evidence links the incidence of these diseases in part to environmental toxicants.1 In the US today:
• 1 in 2 American men and 1 in 3 American women are expected to get cancer in their lifetimes.2
• Asthma and learning disabilities, which are associated with chemical exposures, have risen. In addition, dozens of now common conditions like birth defects and low sperm count are strongly linked to some chemicals in the environment. (See Toxicant and Disease Database.)
Gaps in chemicals regulation
Despite the clear links between pollution and health, our nation’s laws created to protect the public and workers are inadequate. Independent reviews of our nation’s laws to regulate chemicals have found they:
• Fail to provide for adequate testing of existing and new chemicals and materials, such as nanomaterials, so that we are ignorant of the full hazards of most chemicals.3,4
• Fail to regulate known hazards because these laws don't give regulators adequate authority.4
• Fail to provide incentives for safer alternatives to come to market5; and
• Fail to provide individuals with the right to participate in a decision-making process regarding chemical use in their community or workplace.
Why do we need a chemicals policy?
Addressing chemicals on a chemical-by-chemical basis has proven insufficient. Many environmental puchasing programs and environmental campaigns target specific chemicals of concern for reduction. However, hazardous chemicals remain in commerce because:
• Manufacturers switch from a targeted chemical to an untested or unlisted chemical that is not necessarily preferable;
• The chemical-by-chemical approach is very costly and slow; and
• When the government fails to require manufacturers to perform toxicity testing, the burden then shifts to the public to finance testing and environmental monitoring of chemicals in commerce, further slowing change.
Health care institutions have a particular ethical responsibility to use products containing chemicals that pose less risk to human health. A growing number of hospitals are taking a “better safe than sorry” approach to chemicals - eliminating suspected hazards and switching to safer alternatives. Benefits of this approach to the bottom line can include reduced disposal costs, reduced liability, and improved health for employees.
To help hospitals move away from toxic chemicals to safer substitutes, Health Care Without Harm provides resources on:
• Chemical policy implementation
• Problem chemicals
• Safer alternatives
As health care and other large institutions are addressing these problems, leading industries are getting the message.
Dell, IKEA, H&M, Collins & Aikman, Herman Miller and Shaw Carpets are examples of companies committing to using safer chemicals. Innovation is both feasible and profitable and other companies need to set similar goals and get active. See case studies of leading companies that are working to clean up their chemical supply chains in Clean Production Action's "Healthy Business Strategies for Transforming the Toxic Chemical Economy" (pdf).
New regulations in Europe and in various US states are also beginning to address the inadequate regulation of chemicals. See "Europe's Rules Forcing US Firms to Clean Up" for information about new regulations in Europe.
1 CHE Toxicant and Disease database, http://database.healthandenvironment.org/
2 American Cancer Society, “Cancer Facts & Figures 2007.” http://www.cancer.org/docroot/STT/content/STT_1x_ Cancer_Facts__Figures_2007.asp.
3 “Chemical Regulation: Options Exist to Improve EPA's Ability to Assess Health Risks and Manage Its Chemical Review Program,” GAO-05-458, US Government Accounting Office, June 2005, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05458.pdf.
4 Jennifer Sass, “Nanotechnology’s Invisible Threat: Small Science, Big Consequences,” Natural Resources Defense Council, http://www.nrdc.org/health/science/nano/nano.pdf.
5 Michael P. Wilson, “Green Chemistry in California: A Framework for Leadership in Chemicals Policy and Innovation,” California Policy Research Center, http://www.ucop.edu/cprc/greenchemistryrpt.pdf.
|
