The point of the original article is that these concerns have been around since the '90s, the EPA was requested to perform studies of the effects of trace chemicals in the food chain and/or household environments for which there has been plausible for some concern. This was quashed and slow rolled under Bush, (perhaps the chemical industry is also concerned), and has now been given a substantial amount of funding. I think it is better to do the science and see what we are dealing with. Personally, I also strongly suspect that, when the studies are done, we will see that we have been poisoning ourselves for the convenience of certain industrial sectors and the product distribution process. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Be thankful for the future effects of REACH. A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds; a man of deeds and not of words is like a garden full of turds — Anonymous
This link from your link shows concerns similar to those expressed in my original comments. I don't think the work subsequent to Sept. 2006 has served to diminish concerns about these chemicals. My own concerns usually go to the tendencies of "serious" people to minimize concerns rather than to risk their "serious" status. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
A set of mostly voluntary initiatives recently announced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify and manage the risks of thousands of chemicals will provide far less protection than the more comprehensive approach taken under the European Union's new REACH Regulation, according to Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). EDF is presenting its critique of EPA's Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP) at a meeting being held today by EPA to receive input on its initiatives. "ChAMP just doesn't have the reach of REACH, despite EPA's efforts to claim otherwise," said Dr. Richard A. Denison, EDF Senior Scientist. "It will yield far less data on far fewer chemicals. In its haste to catch up with other global initiatives, EPA intends to make decisions about risk using incomplete or poor quality information, especially with respect to how chemicals are used and how people and the environment are exposed to them."
EDF is presenting its critique of EPA's Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP) at a meeting being held today by EPA to receive input on its initiatives.
"ChAMP just doesn't have the reach of REACH, despite EPA's efforts to claim otherwise," said Dr. Richard A. Denison, EDF Senior Scientist. "It will yield far less data on far fewer chemicals. In its haste to catch up with other global initiatives, EPA intends to make decisions about risk using incomplete or poor quality information, especially with respect to how chemicals are used and how people and the environment are exposed to them."
"The ECHA will handle registration applications and safety data for around 30 000 widely used substances as Reach is phased in over the next 11 years." You can't be me, I'm taken
It's not a powerful lobby by any stretch of the imagination. But it's there. And it's had no scruples trumping up vaccination scares that have actually killed people.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
