Political Discussions
E.P.A. Will Draft New Law
Posted by timethief • 10/03/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: bisphenol a, cosmetics, epa, legislation, perfluorinated compounds, phthalates, plastic bottles, toxic chemicals, vinyl
Lisa Jackson, administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.), is proposing a major change in the way the federal government regulates tens of thousands of chemicals in consumer products, one that would place more of a responsibility on industry to prove that the compounds are safe.
Jackson is proposing an overhaul of a 1976 toxics law that she called "inordinately cumbersome and time-consuming" and said that her agency will immediately begin analyzing and regulating six widely-used chemicals found in countless consumer products.
Among the six are bisphenol A, used in plastic bottles; phthalates, found in vinyl and cosmetics; and perfluorinated compounds used in making non-stick coatings and food packaging. Many scientists say these chemicals can mimic hormones and hurt development of fetuses and children, as well as possibly causing reproductive problems and cancer.
"As more and more chemicals are found in our bodies and the environment, the public is understandably anxious and confused," said Jackson. "Many are turning to government for assurance that chemicals have been assessed using the best available science."
e360.yale.edu/content/digest.msp?id=2076
I think this is good news. What's your response to this news item?
User Comments
-
Given the amount of chemicals in our fish, drinking water, and bodies, it would seem to be unavoidable. But will it deal with agriculture?
The EPA has been pretty busy lately. Here are some other recent stories:
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113295610
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113374443&ft=1&f=3
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112854127-
Thanks. I have supper on the go but will click the links and read later and come back.
-
-
Coming from an engineering background, I would say that it is nearly impossible to have a conversation about industrial pollutants on BlogCatalog. My suspicion, however, is that this is probably a good move and the right one, and I say this partially because it is not common knowledge.
See, when government does something that's really stupid to make people happy and vote for them, they parade it down the streets. The less public attention a policy gets, the more likely it is to be a good idea because if they were doing it to be the whore of Babylon they probably wouldn't be so quiet like about it. It could be for lobbyists, but as it isn't through legislature I doubt it.-
By "engineering background," you mean you are an undergraduate in a field that is not directly related to this legislation, but which could be related to solutions for companies looking to pollute less. What kind of engineering is it that you're studying?
Be that as it may, we need to offer actual arguments here, not just our credentials. If we have the credentials, or general competence, the arguments will speak for themselves.
Your point in the second paragraph is perhaps overstated, but it seems to contain some truth too. A lot of really important work in government, whether for better or worse, is done outside of the limelight. And there's a lot to do on this score after a decade of negligence and backsliding. -
@c&m: Industrial Engineering but for the first couple years they have you cover just about everything and then specialize after that. What I mean is that chemistry is complicated and requires a different approach then I think the folks on this particular board would be used to. It requires a lot of nit picky details, study of side products, catalyzation, interaction with biochemicals (of which there are millions!), temperature study, understanding of bonding and the forms of radiation, catalyzation et cetera that would cause bonds to break, in other words, a lot and not the kind of fun stuff that you can make jokes about and poke fun at each other for. In any case though, the fact that the EPA has not played Premadonna with this move gives me hope, as they're smart people, just slightly evil.
-
So us dim-bulbs and "premadonna"s aren't allowed to have an opinion? -
No I just don't think this setting would encourage good thinking. We're too in to scoring quick points. And "Premadonnas" is referring to the EPA, not you.
-
-
Hu kerrs?
-
-
It will be interesting to see how this plays out
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
