Date: Dec 20, 2007 3:41 PM
Buyers at Risk: Christmas Season of Toxic Recalls
By Mark Schapiro
AlterNet.org
Wednesday 19 December 2007

Who is out there protecting Americans from these hidden hazards? Practically
no one.

As we pass through the season of toy recalls into the season of Christmas
consumerism, none of the presidential candidates on either side of the aisle
have focused on a singular issue that would send a powerful signal of commitment
to protecting Americans. The question of ensuring the security of Americans from
the hazards to their health contained in hundreds of consumer products hangs
like a ripe fruit for any candidate willing to pick it.
Who is out there protecting Americans from these hidden hazards? The answer:
practically nobody.
We now know what happens when illegal substances like lead are integrated
into toys and shipped to the United States from China: They slip into the
country past the eviscerated Consumer Product Safety Commission, whose sole toy
inspector spends most of his time making sure toys don't break in children's
hands, rather than assessing the toxic substances that may enter into their
bodies. In fact, the CPSC's budget has dropped in a more or less inverse
proportion to U.S. toy manufacturers sourcing production in China.
Hillary Clinton may have called for greater vigilance of our imports from
China, but it's not just illegal substances like lead that are being integrated
into an array of consumer products. A host of substances suspected of causing
cancer, mutating genes and disrupting the reproductive system are permitted in
the United States, while much of the world - our economic peers in Europe, Japan
and even in emerging economies like Korea - are banning them from use.
U.S. influence has been slipping globally, diminished by a bellicose foreign
policy, the rapidly dropping clout of the dollar and the quicksand of Iraq. But
nowhere are Americans feeling this shrinking global presence more than in the
realm of their safety from consumer products that can cause innumerous
life-threatening health problems.
Once, 30 years ago, the United States was the leader on environmental
protection. What we did in America - creating the EPA, passing laws regulating
chemicals - was followed by the rest of the world. The Toxic Substances Control
Act was our law. It was the first in the world to address the potential health
dangers from chemicals. But it included a massive loophole: Any chemical already
on the market as of 1981 did not have to undergo any testing for its effects on
human health or the environment.
The result: Some 30 years later, 90 percent of the chemicals on the market
today - some 65,000 substances - have never been assessed for their toxicity.
Over the intervening 26 years, our laws have not kept up with the
exponential increase in scientific knowledge of chemicals' effects on the human
body. But the rest of the world is moving ahead. Those moves are being led by
the European Union, which now includes nearly 500 million people in 27 countries
- a market far larger than the United States.
Why did the EU make the changes? It's just good business. They are looking
at the billions of dollars in costs to public health triggered by exposure to
toxic chemicals. They did the math. It's cheaper to act before the problem
worsens. They are taking a preventative stance, while the United States remains
complacent with the status quo.
Take toys, for example: the Europeans responded to a growing body of
evidence suggesting that a plastic additive called phthalates may contribute to
decreased production of testosterone in infant boys by banning the substance
from use in products aimed at children under the age of 3. Much of the evidence
used by the Europeans to make that decision came from American scientists, some
of whom have been supported in their research by our own EPA. But no one in the
U.S. government has been willing to listen.
The result: Toys are manufactured in China without phthalates for export to
the European Union and with phthalates for export to the United States. European
manufacturers have found far less toxic alternatives, and European kids have as
many plastic animals and other goofy playthings as their American counterparts.
Another example, cosmetics: No independent body anywhere in the United
States independently assesses the safety of ingredients used in cosmetics. Who
knew how many carcinogenic, mutagenic and reproductive system inhibitors are
included in cosmetics? Now we know, because the Europeans have published a
"negative" list banning such substances from cosmetics now sold in Europe. And
not just Europe: increasing numbers of emerging economies, like Korea and
Brazil, are beginning to look to Brussels, capitol of the EU, and not Washington
for guidance on how to address such potential hazards.
Altogether, America's bluff is being called: The world's other major economy
is showing that safety and financial success are not mutually exclusive. Indeed,
at a time of rising environmental sensitivity in the marketplace, many of these
"greener" businesses are now posing a competitive challenge to U.S. producers.
The first candidate to realize that this issue strikes directly at American's
sense of safety and security will reap major benefits at the polls.
---------
Mark Schapiro is the author of "Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday
Products and What's at Stake for American Power" (Chelsea Green, 2007).