ALEX WONG/GETTY IMAGES
TOXIC
DANGERS
gram studying the safety of industrial chemicals — including flame
retardants. While advocates find
this suspicious, the EPA defends
their decision.
“The agency benefits from
having employees from different backgrounds and experience,
whether they are from the public
or private sector,” according to
an EPA spokesperson. “There are
no concerns of industry influence
given that Dr. Stedeford voluntarily recused himself from any
direct involvement in matters related to Albemarle and issues related to flame retardants.”
Meanwhile, chemical interests
have spent some $375 million
since 2005 to elect and influence federal leaders, specifically
in regards to the pending overhaul
of TSCA, according to a report
released in October by Common
Cause, a nonprofit, nonpartisan
citizens lobbying organization.
“Stakeholders and members on
the other side of the aisle must
recognize the gravity of public
health risks and the widespread
support for updating the law,”
said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA),
who has unveiled legislation similar to the Safe Chemicals Act in
the House. “People are concerned
HUFFINGTON
11.11.12
about the chemicals they are being
exposed to but don’t have faith in
the federal government to act.”
“Industry has succeeded in becoming the gatekeeper to any efforts for reform,” added Steingraber. “There’s been lots of nascent
efforts. But, in the end, the empire
always strikes back.”
BURDEN OF PROOF
A look back to World War II can
offer some insight into the origin of today’s industrial chemical
landscape.
Under the secrecy and immediacy of wartime, companies
churned out massive quantities of
synthetic chemicals while taking
little time to consider their safety.
More immediate concerns took
precedent such as putting soldiers
in uniforms and equipping them
with weapons — including weapons to fight malarial mosquitoes.
Rep. Henry
Waxman
(D-CA),
proposed
legislation
like the Safe
Chemicals
Act in the
House.