TSCA taken to task in well-rounded broadcast.

In their short piece, correspondent Jeff Young and producer Bruce Gellerman present many viewpoints and directly highlight the difficulties inherent in recommendations to shift the responsibility of determining chemical safety from the government to industry. What Young and Gellerman fail to discuss are recent calls for changes in the way chemicals are tested in the laboratory to evaluate risks to human health and safety.

 

For decades, safe levels of chemicals have been determined by exposing animals to large amounts of chemicals and then calculating a dose where no effects are expected – usually 100 or 1,000 times lower than the lowest dose that was found to cause harm. Usually these low, “safe” doses are not actually tested to determine whether or not they are, in fact, safe.

 

Unfortunately, entire classes of chemicals can have unpredictable effects at low exposure levels. For instance, chemicals with hormonal activity (often termed endocrine disruptors) can have effects at extremely low doses – especially, as animal studies indicate, on reproductive systems and the developing brain. This is because hormones naturally act in the body at very low levels – at part-per-billion or even part-per-trillion quantities.

 

To explain the call for reform in chemical testing, Young and Gellerman interviewed many stakeholders, including environmental activists, representatives of the chemical industry, and US Congressman Henry Waxman. 

 

In weaving together their quotes and comments, Young and Gellerman paint a picture of how industry officials acknowledge that it is time to update toxic chemical regulation in the United States. Most stakeholders appear to agree that future testing should be performed by chemical manufacturers prior to use of a chemical. Currently, chemicals are only occasionally tested for safety and often after they have reached markets.

 

The reporters also indicate areas with significant differences of opinion that need to be addressed, such as when determining what level of harm chemical regulators are willing to accept from chemical exposures. Health advocates are calling for chemicals to be restricted or banned unless manufacturers can prove that chemicals would do no harm to humans or the environment. Industry representatives counter that tight restrictions will significantly hamper innovation and that regulators will need to determine acceptable risk since all chemicals have some inherent risk.

 

Young and Gellerman are correct to point out the need for reform in regulation of toxic chemicals. They accurately present many viewpoints, and give their listeners and readers a good understanding of the differing opinions on this topic. Further, they accurately convey the complexity of overhauling toxic chemical regulation. Their broadcast would have been even stronger if they had included information about changing how chemicals are tested to ensure public safety.