On September 29, the EPA's top administrator announced that the Obama Administration would announce the long-awaited amendment of the Toxic Substances Control Act. This announcement came in a speech in San Francisco, the home of all good regulations. The Scientific American states: "As a result, she said the Obama Administration will promote a new chemical law in Congress in the coming months that puts the responsibility on industry to prove that its compounds are safe." Sound familiar? The EPA also announced a new investigation of phthalates, perhaps attempting to blunt any effort to discredit the ban in the CPSIA.
In another "Brave New World" quote from the article featuring the not-enough-government, not-enough-regulation official: "'As more and more chemicals are found in our bodies and the environment, the public is understandably anxious and confused. Many are turning to government for assurance that chemicals have been assessed using the best available science, and that unacceptable risks haven’t been ignored,' Jackson told an audience of several hundred people during a speech at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on Tuesday night. An audience member asked if the EPA would add the right of citizens to sue for non-compliance of the law, a provision that lies within the Clean Water Act. 'That’s a great idea,' she said, and 'it was certainly something to consider.'” [Emphasis added]
Hey, Chemical Industry - welcome to our misery! Why don't you embrace this change with enthusiasm - appeasement really worked wonders in the case of the CPSIA.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Rick can you do a post on the Illinois amendment to their "Lead Poisoning Prevention Act" and what it means for manufacturers?
Ben, I will write the post shortly. I understand from the Illinois AG's office (today on a Sunday, how's that for service?!) that rules are being drafted this week to make it clear that the law applies to paint ONLY for toys. Will clarify soon. Stay tuned.
Thanks. I'm curious about rhinestones. I read in a news article that it will apply to jewelry too. I'm in apparel and my suppliers have been able to source clear stones way under the 300 ppm limit. Still hoping for a colored stone solution if CPSC and congress won't come to their senses.
Hit enter too soon.
I meant to add that if a solution is found but it's still above 40 ppm it won't be worth it to deal wirh a seperate state law. Especially since the percent of our business in Illinois is very very small.
The Illinois law is focused on jewelry, child care items and lead-in-paint on toys. More to follow. If you are in apparel, you should be outside the law.
As for rhinestones, I have been loud and clear on this subject. The position of the government is utterly indefensible on a common sense basis. Of course, they have never replied to my comments or my letter (yet). The decision they made to wreck so many businesses is consistent with the CPSIA and its terms, but serves no other purpose. It's just a random and destructive act. Everyone wasting their time trying to find substitute materials is wasting their time and resources at the behest of the government. We are really getting ahead now . . . .
I completely agree. I was appalled when Chairman Tenenbaum said during the hearing that she had found a great solution to the ATV problem by working with the industry to spend millions of dollars to redesign the products so the lead is inaccessable.
As head of the CPSC how she thinks it is perfectly acceptable to waste time and resources on a product that has never been shown to give a child lead poisoning is beyond me. The focus of the CPSC needs to be on real safety risks. Heaven forbid a child dies from a preventable safety issue because they were too busy focusing on phantom dangers.
Post a Comment