"That fantasy is gone in Europe..."

Beegobug passed along a Harper's article by Mark Shapiro called Toxic Inaction which is the reaction I'd have had to the CJR article I'd mentioned earlier (if I were a better writer, more informed and had lots of time).

In it, Mr. Shapiro lays out the reasons that Europe has decided to be proactive about regulating chemicals in commercial use:

[in 2005,] World Wildlife Fund International tested the blood of three generations of women from twelve European countries. The largest number of chemicals—sixty-three—was found in the group of grandmothers. Given the number of years they had had to accumulate exposure, this result was perhaps not surprising. But the next-highest level was among their grandchildren, aged twelve to twenty-eight, who in their short lifetimes had amassed fifty-nine different toxic chemicals.

Now, I know - discussions of chemical safety are areas where amateurs should tread lightly. Silent Spring wasn't exactly ironclad science - and outright bans of substances may limit scientific or industrial uses that do not threaten the public or pose environmental hazards.

However-
It would seem that the model of "let's test chemicals on the public at large" is just flat out insane. Europe seems to get it:

Europeans have recently decided to do something about all the untested chemicals that are ending up in their blood. “The assumption among Americans is, ‘If it’s on the market, it’s okay,’” explained Robert Donkers, an E.U. official who was asked to review Europe’s regulatory laws after the baby-product scare. “That fantasy is gone in Europe.” Donkers’s efforts were the first steps in what became, seven years later, a new E.U. chemical regulation called REACH—Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals. REACH amounts to a revolution in how chemicals are managed, and in how production decisions around the world will be made from now on. Regulations set by the most powerful countries have quickly become, through trade, the international standard.

It goes without saying that the US chemical industry is militantly opposed to these regulations. They of course, have political backing:

The changes in Europe follow eight years of vigorous opposition from the U.S. chemical industry and the Bush administration. Four U.S. agencies -- the EPA, the Commerce Department, the State Department and the Office of the Trade Representative -- argued that the system would burden manufacturers and offer little public benefit.
In 2002, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell directed the staffs of American Embassies in Europe to oppose the measure. He cited talking points developed in consultation with the American Chemistry Council, a manufacturers trade group.

The ACC wants the status quo. You know, the one where they supply the government agencies with the science - so they can make informed decisions?

How's that working out?

Let's try a test case. Bisphenol A (or BPA). (via Bill Moyers Journal):

Bisphenol A is actually the chemical used to make polycarbonate plastic. It's the hard, clear plastic used in baby bottles, and it also is the lining of all metal cans made in the United States - beer cans, soda cans, food cans. And this chemical leaches out of all of these products into any kind of food or beverages that come in contact with it.

Okay. BPA is a chemical. It's in contact with a lot of substances we ingest. So?

Bisphenol A, BPA, is what is known as an endocrine disruptor...

The manufacturers of BPA, and their lobbyists, say it is safe. U.S. regulators agree. One team of investigative journalists decided to ask…why? Susanne Rust is a science reporter with the MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL.

[snip]

Endocrine disruptors were first identified as the cause of wildlife abnormalities in the early 90s. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration, though, repeatedly reassured the public that BPA, at least, was safe.

So, the regulators say it's safe. What's the problem? People always say things are dangerous, did anyone look into the new claims?

...prompted by an outcry from advocacy groups, President Bill Clinton signed the Food Quality Protection Act in 1996. That same year, the Safe Drinking Water Act was amended.
The combined legislation promised a chemical screening program of endocrine disruptors to be overseen by the EPA. The goal was to determine whether or not they were dangerous to human beings.
1998 - the EPA, headed by Carol Browner, sets a deadline to fast track the testing of 15,000 chemicals suspected as endocrine disruptors….
1999 - the EPA misses the deadline. The Natural Resources Defense Council sues the agency to enforce screening. 2001 - a new administration takes office; Christine Todd Whitman becomes head of the EPA.
2003 - two more suits are brought against the EPA, one by a coalition of environmentalists and advocacy groups…the other by the attorneys general of four states. The suits attempt to force the agency into compliance with the food quality protection act….
2007 - 11 years after the laws were passed…the EPA had yet to screen its first chemical.

Eleven years - that's pretty lousy. But, again - the regulators had reams of studies that demonstrated the safety of BPA. A single study citing a risk isn't exactly a reason to get all excited. I mean the companies who make this stuff have studied it to death...

In defense of the safety of Bisphenol A, the companies and the ACC cited studies they funded themselves, some paid for by the ACC, which has an annual 75 million dollar budget.
[Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reporter] SUZANNE RUST: They say the reason they get these, these results is that their studies are better than any of the academic studies, any of the government studies. They can use more animals; they have better controls in their laboratory.

See? More money = better research. Who cares what some underfunded university lab rat thinks? I mean how good can their research really be?

Reporter Suzanne Rust was given the task of looking at all the the state of BPA research.

In all, Rust evaluated 258 studies done over two decades involving lab animals with spines, the type scientists consider most relevant to human beings.
SUZANNE RUST: Right away, you could see that 80% of these studies all found that this chemical caused harm.

But, why does the government regulatory body say it's safe? How does that make sense?

More than half the studies, 168 of them, evaluated Bisphenol A at low doses. The vast majority of those - 132 of the 168 - showed harm to lab animals. And, Rust would report, "nearly three-fourths of the studies that found the chemical had no harmful effects were funded by industry." Rust's overall conclusion: an overwhelming majority of the studies found BPA to be harmful in lab animals - causing breast and testicular cancer, diabetes, hyperactivity, obesity, low sperm counts, miscarriage and other reproductive failures. Studies paid for by the chemical industry were much less likely to find damaging effects or disease.

What the...?

All of the studies Rust had evaluated were in the public domain, as available to government regulators as they were to a reporter in Milwaukee.

Yeah. The guys who make the stuff pay for their own studies. They give their studies to the regulators - who dutifully file them away in case there are questions - and the FDA never goes out and does research on their own. Nor do they keep abreast of the latest findings.

The FDA takes what it is given and asks no questions.

And they are merely the latest example of a regulatory body that has been co-opted by the industry it is supposed to be regulating.

The BPA battle is still being fought.

Arrgh!

If Europe's no longer trusting the assurances of the chemical industry - why do we? We are sure to get some benefit from overseas regulation - but stuff that can't be exported will simply be sold here.

Makes you wonder.