Chemical Policy Reform

Background Paper #1

Require Safer Substitutes and Solutions

I had the opportunity to learn more in-depth about Paper #1: Require Safer Substitutes and Solutions. The document portrays a clear awareness about the lack of safety in regards to the multiple toxic substances we are exposed to via manufactured products, but there is limited support and regulation to create safer alternatives. As mentioned by Thorpe & Rossi (2005), "In most cases...replacement [of toxic substances] is often just as hazardous or simply a reduction of the quantity or concentration of the toxic substance that has been targeted." In this case, it seems like bringing safer alternatives into the field has become an afterthought full of empty promises with very little planning.

Through the implementation of something like the Substitution Principle, we can hasten the development of safer alternatives. Via the Substitution Principle, toxic substances would be replaced with safer alternatives or alternatives that pose no hazards to our health. This is particularly important, considering that most of these toxic substances are Persistent Organic Pollutants, which tend to bioaccumulate through our food chain, eventually entering our systems at higher amounts than the levels at which they initially enter the environment.

Unfortunately, demanding something such as the Substitution Principle requires challenging our government and demanding that they find large manufacturers accountable, while also providing the funds and support to help these manufacturers identify safe alternatives. Instead of targeting a chemical when we've determined that it's unsafe, we must demand that, "safer chemicals in products be incorporated at the design stage" vs. finding unsustainable ways to phase them out of our systems (Thorpe & Rossi, 2005). Multiple changes can be made throughout the development stage of a product, including: chemical, material, product, and process.

I also agree that harmful effects of chemicals should be identified and categorized based on their known hazard and not the risk assessment (the level of exposure most likely to occur during each stage of the product’s lifecycle). Over the course of this class, we have learned that even small doses can lead to adverse health outcomes over short periods of time.

This paper clearly shows that it takes more than transparency. One important step would be to demand transparency, so we know what we are purchasing. However, that doesn't do much if we can't find a safe alternative. For example, my mother purchased a dress for my 6-year old cousin and upon getting home, she read that the belt attached to the dress had Phthalates. Although we appreciate the transparency, which let's us choose whether we would like to keep the product or return it, we'd rather have a product without the toxic substances overall.