HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
US
Bullies Europeans on Chemical Testing
by
Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
October
14, 2003
Literally
tens of thousands of chemicals on the market have never been tested for their
impact on human health.
The
chemical industry thinks this is a good thing. Safety testing is too expensive,
the chemical companies say. Chemical manufacturers and users handle chemicals
responsibly to make sure people are not inadvertently exposed to them. And
these tens of thousands of chemicals have proven their value and safety in real
life tests -- they have been on the market, contributing to higher standards of
living, with no discernible harmful impact on health.
Some
people take a different point of view. One way or another, they note, people
are exposed to thousands of chemicals -- in the food they eat, the water they
drink, the air they breathe, through contact with consumer products that
contain chemicals, or by other means. There is now clear evidence that people
are accumulating a growing "body burden" of industrial chemicals
trapped in their tissues. According to this view, permitting potentially
dangerous chemicals on the market without pre-screening and an assessment of the
risk they pose is a kind of societal Russian Roulette. The only sensible thing
to do is test chemicals to ensure they are safe.
This
second view happens to be shared by the European Commission, the governing body
of the European Union.
In
2001, the European Commission issued a White Paper containing plans for a new
European chemicals regulation policy. The policy, known as REACH (Registration,
Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals), would require chemical companies to
test their products before putting them on market. Substances which are carcinogenic,
mutagenic or toxic to reproduction and persistent organic pollutants would
require affirmative authorization before they could be placed on the market.
When
the Commission announced the REACH proposal, the chemical industry went
berserk.
So
did the U.S. government.
A
September 2003 report from the U.S.-based Environmental Health Fund documented
a full-fledged campaign by the U.S. government to derail REACH.
The
report, based on internal government papers obtained from anonymous sources and
under the Freedom of Information Act, documents a series of meetings between
U.S. government officials and chemical industry representatives.
Although
industry representatives from the American Chemistry Council and the American
Plastics Council at times pushed U.S. government officials to work more
aggressively to block adoption of REACH, the government papers show that it was
Bush administration officials who more frequently complained that industry was
not opposing the plan vigorously enough.
"The
U.S. chemicals industry has been slow to respond to the White Paper [initially
proposing REACH]," asserted a briefing paper for Assistant Secretary of
Commerce Linda Conlin. But government bureaucrats didn't have time to wait for
slothful industry to take action, according to the briefing memo. "Because
of the slow pace of industry response to the Strategy -- Commerce, USTR and EPA
drafted a preliminary set of questions on the Strategy and provided them to the
Commission in December. USTR also met with Commission officials at that
time."
Eventually,
the Bush administration produced an undated "nonpaper" criticizing
REACH. Its language borrowed directly from industry attacks on the proposed
European regulations.
Top
administration officials enlisted in the campaign to block adoption of REACH.
Secretary of State Colin Powell in 2002 sent an "action request"
cable to U.S. embassies in EU countries, urging them to raise concerns with
local government officials, and in 2003 sent a cable directly to European
countries, urging them to stop the European Commission from adopting REACH. The
U.S. Ambassador to the EU, Rockwell Schnabel, repeatedly criticized REACH in
public and private settings. Commerce Secretary Donald Evans in May 2002
assured a Dupont executive that the United States was working actively to
sabotage REACH.
The
U.S. State Department failed to respond to our requests for comment on the U.S.
lobbying campaign.
The
American Chemistry Council (ACC) hasn't been so shy. After the report
documenting the U.S. campaign was published, Greg Lebedev, ACC president and
CEO, told Chemical Week, "We would be mad as hell if the Bush
administration didn't lobby on behalf of American manufacturing interests."
Meanwhile,
the European chemical industry was hard at work. In September, British Prime
Minister Tony Blair, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and French President Jacques
Chirac sent a letter to the European Commission criticizing REACH.
Underlying
the industry's rabid opposition to REACH is the precautionary principle. The
precautionary principle asserts that the entity introducing a product into the
environment or food supply must bear the burden of showing it is safe. The
REACH rules requiring authorization for hazardous substances to be permitted on
the market embody the precautionary principle.
It
is a model of effective government action that industry generally, and the
chemical industry in particular, hopes to block at any price.
Already,
the campaign to pull back REACH has had a major impact.
At
the end of September, the European Commission announced it was scaling back
REACH. The revisions closely track complaints from the United States.
"REACH
appears to be moving away from the White Paper and closer to the White
House," says Joseph DiGangi, who authored the Environmental Health Fund
report on U.S. efforts to undermine REACH.
Still,
DiGangi says, important elements are retained -- including the requirement that
hazardous chemicals obtain authorization before being allowed on the market.
More
changes may be forthcoming. The European Commission is expected to finalize
REACH rules by the end of this month.
At
stake is not only the health and well-being of the people of the European Union,
but the creation of a model and precedent for chemical regulation and for
precautionary action generally.
The
choice is as simple as this: Err on the side of safety, or take your chances
and see what happens.
Russell Mokhiber is editor of
the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter, http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com.
Robert
Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor. They are
co-authors of Corporate Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on
Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press; http://www.corporatepredators.org).
Other Recent Articles by Russell Mokhiber
and Robert Weissman
* Terry
Gross, Grover Norquist and the Holocaust
* Other
Things You Might Do With $87 Billion
* We
Had a Democracy Once, But You Crushed It
* The
Two Faces of George Bush in Africa
* Corporate
Crime Without Shame
* Gray
Panthers’ Corporate Connections
* Throwing
Precaution to the Wind
* Why
Ari Should’ve Resigned in Protest