Come to think of it, why haven't we always done it that way?

All too often, when you take a moment to think about how something works - it suddenly occurs to you to ask why it works that way.

In this case - there is an answer, it's just not a particularly satisfying one.

The Washington Post on A1 writes that a tough new European law regulating the chemical industry is affecting the way U.S. products will be made—and its sounds like that’s a good thing.

The new regulations will force companies to prove chemicals are safe before they start selling them, as opposed to how it is in the U.S., where “where regulators must prove that a chemical is harmful before it can be restricted or removed from the market.”

(via CJR's Opening Bell)

Yeah, why the hell is that, anyway?

And while we're on the subject - anyone care to explain this little factoid (via WaPo)?

In the United States...the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, grandfathered in about 62,000 chemicals then in commercial use. Chemicals developed after the law's passage did not have to be tested for safety. Instead, companies were asked to report toxicity information to the government, which would decide if additional tests were needed.

So the 62,000 chemicals already in use as of 1976 have not been subject to government scrutiny. After 1976, manufacturers will be asked to provide information about their dangers to the government.

So the government can follow up. If it wants to.

How's that going, so far?

In more than 30 years, the Environmental Protection Agency has required additional studies for about 200 chemicals...

So, of the 18,000 chemicals introduced into the market in the last three decades, the EPA has asked for studies of 200 of them.

*calculator sound*

1%

Okay, sure - that sounds bad, but -

The EPA has banned only five chemicals since 1976. The hurdles are so high for the agency that it has been unable to ban asbestos, which is widely acknowledged as a likely carcinogen and is barred in more than 30 countries. Instead, the EPA relies on industry to voluntarily cease production of suspect chemicals.

Well... that sucks.

Postscript:

Oddly enough - When I went looking for the five substances that the EPA has managed to ban, I came across the same WaPo article - as presented in the Seattle Times. This version spells out what got banned and adds a bonus:

Only five chemicals have been banned by the EPA since 1976: polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs; fully halogenated chlorofluroalkanes; dioxin; hexavalent chromium; and dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane, or DDT.
Asbestos was banned for a while, although the ban was overturned in 1991. Asbestos, widely acknowledged as a likely carcinogen, is barred in more than 30 countries.

-and if Truthdig is accurate, DDT was banned prior to the TSCA, which would lower the EPA's post 1976 count to a measly four:

In the three decades since the landmark Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) became law in 1976, the EPA has banned only five chemicals or chemical categories: polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), fully halogenated chlorofluroalkanes, dioxin, asbestos (though this ban was overturned in 1991), and hexavalent chromium. The pesticide DDT, which was banned in 1972 (before TSCA was enacted), is still being found in people’s bodies today.

Ahhh, good times....