2. Where did/does the author work, what else has s/he written about, and what are her/his credentials? Both authors are staff reporters for the Wall Street Journal.
3. What are the topics of the text? This article announces the passing of this new legislation, the controversy behind it, and at the end, brings up the potential burden on small and medium-sized businesses that the new regulations would have an effect on.
4. What is the main argument of the text? The new REACH standards are too stringent and might need to be watered down to allow industry to not be too overburdened.
5. Describe at least three ways that the argument is supported.
The new standards would shift the burden of proof from regulators to businesses when it comes to the safety of thousands of commonly used industrial chemicals
"Environmentalists decried the changes, which exempted thousands of chemicals and reduced the estimated costs of testing to less than €3 billion ($3.7 billion) from more than €12 billion over 11 years."
The U.S. government still fears $150 billion of its exports could be affected.
6. What three quotes capture the message of the text?
"If chemicals are disappearing from the market, downstream users -- manufacturers that depend on the chemicals -- will have to take their products out of the market and re-engineer them. The indirect impact on business could be devastating," said Thomas Jostmann, an executive director at the European Chemical Industry Council. "It might be more appropriate for the commission to take back the proposal and rework it completely."
"I won't say this [Reach] is the bible or the gospel of chemicals policy and not a word must be changed," he said at his confirmation hearing. "We may need to do a little bit more to lighten the burden on business."
Mr. Verheugen said that rather than withdrawing the legislation or pushing through immediate amendments, he would let the parliament finish its deliberations over the regulations and then consider changes based on its findings and other assessments. "In some areas we may have to look at environmental concerns; in others we may have to consider industry concerns as well," he said. But he added he was determined to lessen the regulatory burden on small and medium-size businesses, which he said are getting "buried" under rules. "It's not a matter of having less legislation, but better legislation," he said.
7. What three questions about environmental risk and precaution does this article leave you with?
Why were there chemicals being developed without being tested for public consumption in the first place? How did it all start?
How many chemicals have made the list under REACH since its passing? What other changes has it gone under?
What is the process for a chemical (that is already in the market) to make REACH's list as a chemical that needs to be evaluated?
<span style="line-height: normal; white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">which would shift the burden of proof from regulators to
businesses when it comes to the safety of thousands of commonly used
industrial chemicals</span>
Hannah Karp and John Miller, "Chemical Rules Face Possibility of Dilution in EU," Financial Times, September 8, 2004. Web. <http://courses.wcupa.edu/rbove/eco343/040Compecon/E_Union/041001verheug.txt>.
2. Where did/does the author work, what else has s/he written about, and what are her/his credentials?
Both authors are staff reporters for the Wall Street Journal.
3. What are the topics of the text?
This article announces the passing of this new legislation, the controversy behind it, and at the end, brings up the potential burden on small and medium-sized businesses that the new regulations would have an effect on.
4. What is the main argument of the text?
The new REACH standards are too stringent and might need to be watered down to allow industry to not be too overburdened.
5. Describe at least three ways that the argument is supported.
6. What three quotes capture the message of the text?
7. What three questions about environmental risk and precaution does this article leave you with?
<span style="line-height: normal; white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">which would shift the burden of proof from regulators to businesses when it comes to the safety of thousands of commonly used industrial chemicals</span>