Huffington Magazine Issue 22 | Page 47

PHOTO OR ILLUSTRATION CREDIT TK TOXIC DANGERS After the war, post-Depression economic concerns kept that manufacturing machine moving. Companies repurposed chemical goods such as nylon, BPA and DDT for domestic uses. And they did so, again, generally without pausing to think about the health ramifications. New chemicals quickly followed suit as companies like Dupont raised the public’s support and appetite for new products — from Tupperware to televisions. Industry giant Dupont Co.’s motto reflected the widespread attitude of the day: “Better Things For Better Living … Through Chemistry.” “In the burgeoning post-WWII economy, we were looking at all kinds of new ideas. Chemistry created a new world, much for the betterment of humankind,” said Brown. “Hindsight is always 20/20.” By the time the U.S. government passed legislation to regulate toxic chemicals in 1976, some 62,000 chemicals already filled the U.S. market. That new law, while meant to regulate all industrial chemicals, actually kept the ball rolling for the chemical industry: TSCA grandfathered in most existing chemicals such as BPA under presumptions of safety HUFFINGTON 11.11.12 ! “I can’t stand between my children’s bodies and the some 200 BRAIN POISONS that circulate in our economy.” despite the lack of safety testing. The EPA reports that it has only been able to require testing of little more than 200 members of that list, due to the “legal and procedural hurdles that TSCA imposes.” Today, the vast majority of chemicals in use remain among those first 62,000, noted Richard Denison, senior scientist with the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund. Of the rest — the more than 20,000 chemicals introduced in the U.S. since 1976 — few of those have undergone any thorough health risk assessment either. And even when the science does prove a chemical’s harm, added Denison, the EPA’s hands tend to be tied. “The language of TSCA requires that the EPA, before it can do any kind of regulation of a chemical, has to find the risk posed by that chemical unreasonable,” he said. “That term is not defined in the law.”