So, we’ll slog through and insert alerts.
WASHINGTON (May 6, 11:20 a.m. ET) — Adding more fuel to the arguments of those calling for reform (those calling for reform are on the EPA or allied payrolls) of chemical management in the U.S., a presidential panel says that environmental exposure to chemicals “has been not adequately addressed” and the nation needs a new “comprehensive, cohesive policy agenda regarding environmental contaminants and protection of human health.” (What’s really needed is increased funding for EPA and associated environmentalists.)
“Existing estimates [of cancers that develop as a result of environmental exposures] are based on outdated (outdated to us, who want the problems to be bigger) science and significantly underestimate (maybe) the actual influence of environment on cancer,” said the President’s Cancer Panel, which released its 2008-2009 annual report, Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now, on May 6.
“Additionally, infants, children, (the children! the children! What EPA Press Release is complete without “the children?) and adolescents are especially vulnerable to environmental contaminants,” said the report. “The current regulatory approach in the U.S. is reactionary (reacts to real problems) rather than precautionary (reacts to imaginary problems) and is rendered ineffective by inadequate funding (never enough funding) and insufficient staffing (never enough people), weak laws and regulations (we never have enough power to fine, jail, confiscate, or regulate), fragmented and overlapping authorities (we need to be in complete and total control) coupled with decentralized and uneven and decentralized enforcement (too worried about “decentralized” to proof read), excessive regulatory complexity, and industry influence (those “industry” people try to get around doing what we want).
“Too often, these factors, either singly or in combination, result in agency dysfunction and a lack of will to identify and remove hazards.” said the report. “Industry has exploited regulatory weaknesses, such as government’s reactionary (rather than precautionary) approach to regulation. Likewise, industry has exploited government’s use of an outdated methodology for assessing “attributable fractions” of the cancer burden due to specific environmental exposures. This methodology has been used effectively by industry to justify introducing untested chemicals into the environment.” (Now, industry has been able to see through our old lies. They use the truth to demonstrate their falsity, and are not doing what we want.)
The president’s Cancer Panel report — which assesses the U.S. National Cancer Program — comes just three weeks after the first bills to reform how chemicals are regulated in the U.S. under the Toxic Substances Control Act were introduced, setting the stage for the development of a new approach to chemical management. (We have a well-planned attack on the private sector, other government agencies, and Congress)
Under TSCA provisions the past 34 years, EPA has only been able to regulate five chemicals and require testing for roughly 200 of the estimated 80,000 chemicals in commerce. (We need to regulate everything!)
The proposed reforms would require a minimum data set of use and exposure information for all chemicals, require EPA to assess chemical risks to a health-based safety standard and look at how chemicals impact sensitive subpopulations such as children (don’t forget the children!) and expectant mothers (but, we aren’t so worried about childrens’ lives that we want to protect them from abortionists), and establish a framework for EPA to more quickly regulate chemicals identified as chemicals of concern. (We need a force of “chemical storm-troopers”)
The American Chemistry Council has not yet reviewed the complete report. But, in an email response to Plastics News, it said:
“While we believe that TSCA has been protective of health and the environment, we believe that advances in science need to be leveraged in our regulatory structure. We have not had an opportunity to review the report. But we would like to point out that we support the National Children’s study which addresses some of the questions about environmental causes of illness in children.”(We want to jump on the bandwagon, too, but only a little bit.)
The President’s Cancer Panel Report also said that “the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated. With nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the United States — many of which are used by millions of Americans in their daily lives and are un-studied or understudied and largely unregulated — exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread,” the report said. “Efforts to inform the public of such harmful exposures and how to prevent them must be increased.” (We have to magnify this problem until no one can think straight.)
The report specifically pointed out, as an example, concerns relative to the chemical, bisphenol A, which is still found in many consumer products and remains “unregulated in the United States, despite the growing link (in their minds) between BPA and several diseases, including various cancers.”
“While BPA has received considerable media coverage,” said the report, “the public remains unaware of many common environmental carcinogens such as naturally occurring radon (Can’t remember if radon is good or bad if it’s “naturally occurring”?) and manufacturing and combustion by-products such as formaldehyde and benzene. Most also are unaware that children (Almost forgot about the “children”.) are far more vulnerable to environmental toxins and radiation than adults.”
“There remains a great deal to be done to identify the many existing but unrecognized environmental carcinogens and eliminate those that are known from our daily lives — our workplaces, schools and homes,” said LaSalle D. Leffall, Jr., chairman of the President’s panel and professor of surgery at the Howard University College of Medicine. “Even though we may currently lack irrefutable proof of harm, the increasing number of known or suspected environmental carcinogens compels us to action,” Lefall said. (We need to get beyond the need for proof of harm if we’re going to do as much as we should.)
The report said that the key issues impeding control of environmental cancer risks are limited research on environmental influences on cancer, conflicting or inadequate exposure measurement, assessment, and classification of chemicals, and ineffective regulation of environmental chemical and other hazardous exposures.
The report said that chemical exposure research has been limited by “low priority and inadequate funding. As a result, the consequences of cumulative lifetime exposure to known carcinogens and the interaction of specific environmental contaminants remain largely unstudied.” (More money must be spent, more people hired.)
In addition, the report said that “efforts to identify, quantify, and control environmental exposures that raise cancer risk, including both single agents and combinations of exposures, have been complicated by the use of different measures, exposure limits, assessment processes, and classification structures across agencies in the U.S. and among nations.”
“At this time, we do not know how much environmental exposures influence cancer risk and related immune and endocrine dysfunction,” said the report. “But we need to determine the full extent of environmental influences on cancer (the FULL extent!). Even though we may lack irrefutable proof of harm (we must rush ahead), the burgeoning number and complexity of known or suspected environmental carcinogens compel us to act to protect public health. (We must count, measure, weigh, analyze, and quantify virtually everything. We must begin right now, while favorable funding opportunities are in control.)
“A precautionary, prevention-oriented approach should replace current reactionary approaches in which human harm must be proven before action is taken to reduce or eliminate exposure,” said the report. “This approach should be the cornerstone of a new national cancer prevention strategy that redirects research and policy agendas and sets tangible goals for reducing or eliminating toxic environmental exposures implicated in cancer causation.”
The report said the U.S. “should shift the burden of proving safety to manufacturers prior to new chemical approval and in renewal applications for chemical approval.” (Since there aren’t enough real problems, we have to get people working on potential problems.)
In addition, the panel called for:
* Increased and improved research regarding environmental contaminants and their effect on human health. (This, alone, would take up all the money in the world.)
* The need to raise consumer awareness of environmental cancer risks and improve consumer understanding and reporting of known exposures. (Justify need for more funding in taxpayer minds.)
* The need to increase awareness of environmental cancer risks and effects of exposure among health care providers. (They need raises, too.)
* Enhanced efforts to eliminate unnecessary radiation-emitting medical tests, and to ensure that radiation doses are as low as reasonably achievable without sacrificing quality. (Gosh, no one ever thought of that!)
* Aggressively addressing toxic environmental exposures caused by the military. (Also need to get funding from other government units.)
