1. Full citation. Vogel, David. The Politics of Precaution: Regulating Health, Safety, and Environmental Risks in Europe and the United States. Princeton [N.J.: Princeton UP, 2012. Print.
2. Where did/does the author work, what else has s/he written about, and what are her/his credentials? David Vogel is professor at the Haas School of Business and in the Department of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. His books include The Market for Virtue: The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility.
3. What are the topics of the text? This chapter compares European and American regulations for the health, safety, and environmental risks of chemicals and hazardous substances.
4. What is the main argument of the text? The main argument is that while the US chemical policy in the 1970s and the early 1980s often acted as an inspiration for European policymaking, the EU has taken over the role as leader in chemical policy development.
5. Describe at least three ways that the argument is supported.
Under TSCA, existing chemicals are assumed safe until proven guilty, even when found in breast milk and even as toxicological evidence accumulates (ex: EPA - asbestos 1989 - failed policy reform)
Russia, which is the EU's third largest trading partner, and a major global chemical producer, based its chemical safety standards on REACH even though it will cost 10% of export earnings because they use the strictest regulations to broaden their market audience (make the most profit) - REACH has a broader impact than US regulations.
On e-waste recycling: the US does not deny that the substances are toxic, but rather that as of right now they are of no threat to human health in landfills and therefore they are dumped there, whereas the EU has a more long term thinking approach and has taken actions against e-waste in landfills.
6. What three quotes capture the message of the text?
"REACH specifically gives government officials the authority to require firms to provide whatever scientific data are needed to evaluate a chemica's health and environmental risks, while TSCA requires the EPA to demonstrate that such data are needed before it can require chemical firms to provide them". (p 170)
According to the co-founder of an organization called MomsRising, "It is outrageous more and more parents look for labels that say items meet Europe regulatory standards because American standards are not to be trusted. We want our families portected from chemical exposure." (p 173)
"TSCA puts the burden on the government to prove that a toxic chemical is at risk... REACH places the burden on the chemical industry - where it should be - to show that chemicals are safe." (p 173)
7. What three questions about environmental risk and precaution does this article leave you with?
How valid are the claims of the rise in animal-testing abuse if stricter chemical standards were to be adopted? How exactly are safety standards assessed (how is animal testing an indicator to human health)?
How do people lose jobs if stricter standards were adopted? If the people who make the banned chemicals lose work because those chemicals aren't produced anymore, can't they find work as being safety standard assessors (since they understand chemical engineering)?
Why has there been low public awareness on an issue that everyone is affected by, especially because it affects public health? Would public pressure have an impact on risk and precaution with regards to chemical safety standards?
8. What three points, details or references from the text did you follow up on to advance your perspective on environmental risk and precaution? (Provide citations, with a brief explanation of what you learned. One of these should be fully annotated, as your second required reading for each week.)
This article talks about Russia's adoption of the EU's REACH standards. The EU is Russia's largest export market. In addition, Russian officials commented after the announcment that adopting REACH standards was extremely important because it concerned a huge number of industries. "We need joint initiatives in order to avoid future conflicts and to cooperate," Khristenko said after the talks.
The new REACH regulation requires that businesses test the chemicals to prove their safety, rather than requiring regulators to prove why they should be banned. 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. 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.
The first list of dangerous chemicals released had 15 listed. Greenpeace and WWF welcomed "the fact that that the engine for substituting the most hazardous chemicals under REACH has finally started," but deplored the low number of substances on the list "compared to the hundreds of known hazardous chemicals in use". A "REACH sin" list was also put together by NGOs and public health groups that had 267 substances to be substituted as priorities under the REACH regulation, but the European Chemical Industry lobby (Cefic) described the 'SIN list' as "a proposal from a specific interest group and not part of the overall REACH legal design," which could potentially contribute to "confusion throughout the value chain".
Notes
The US started regulating chemicals first (1976) before the EU (1979 & weaker) but the US has not made any changes since, while the EU has approved REACH in 2006, which is now stronger than the US's policies.
E-waste regulations in EU (WEEE, RoHS) | US does not think e-waste in landfills is a threat to public health and relies on voluntary efforts to promote e-waste recycling
EU 1976 - packaging and labeling system of dangerous substances to remove barriers from trade
1967 - chemicals had to be tested before they were marketed (did not pass b/c of opposition from Germany and Great Britain - two biggest chemical producers)
When the US enacted TSCA, European countries were upset because it affected trade with American markets - they put forth their own system/standards to continue trade
Sweden - most stringent chemical standards, joined the EU later and has a policy since 1969 to demonstrate safety of all environmentally harmful activities
1979 - substitution policy - hazardous chemicals must be replaced by less harmful ones
EU Pressures of reform - chemicals could travel long distances (Polar bears), endocrine disruption (frogs and birds), minister blood showed signs of chemical exposure
When Sweden joined the EU gave 4 years transition to adapt EU's chemical policies. Since then Sweden has been pushing EU to adapt more stringent policies.
REACH: requires chemical producers to demonstrate that the chemicals they produced or marketed did not adversely affect human health and eliminated the distinction between new and existing chemicals - precautionary principle
Chemical industry is 3rd largest in EU, most major chemical producer internationally (Germany, France, Italy, UK) - major opposition
industry was not opposed to new regulation (streamlined/harmonized/safer new chemicals may be harder to approve because of the old+new distinction, but that it was too burdensome and expensive, affect the competitiveness of the European industry, and will kill a lot of test animals -> REACH changes: no data no market does not apply to chemicals produced in less than 10 tonnes + weakened substitution requirement -> compromise did not please anyone: still too expensive (industry) + no longer equal provisions to all chemicals (public health groups, trade unions, NGOs) debate: estimated costs varied,
US (George W Bush) hates REACH - claimed jobs would be lost (is this because people who make banned chemicals would not have work?), and would affect global trade - debated at WTO, REACH supported by American people, not people in power?
-> REACH was also proposed and drafted when economy was strong but was then passed in an economic downturn
-> Also includes any US chemical sold in the EU (DuPont is affected, so is DOW Chemical - they say it will cost a lot to register)
REACH vs TSCA:
EPA - asbestos 1989 - failed policy reform: under TSCA, existing chemicals are assumed safe until proven guilty, even when found in breast milk and even as toxicological evidence accumulates
Public Concerns about Chemical Safety in the US:
"Our Stolen Future" book published on endocrine disruptors - slow results, 2010 BPA restrictions
"TSCA puts the burden on the government to prove that a toxic chemical is at risk... REACH places the burden on the chemical industry - where it should be - to show that chemicals are safe" (p 173)
Kid-safe bill - monitor chemicals found in umbilical cords and see if they need to be banned or not.
-> Quite a ways to go before Congress is convinced there is a problem
States have passed their own legislation - Massachusetts in 1989, Maine, California in 1986 with Proposition 65 - any chemical with risk cannot be released in water and needs a warning label
e-waste, WEEE (EU)most controversial provision is that producers must organize and finance the treatment, recovery, and disposal of 60-80% of their own electronic and electrical waste - take-back systems or collective arrangements.
Electronic Waste and Recycling in the US:
no federal law for households (half of the e-waste generated is by households) | US generates more e-waste than any other nation Best Buy, Dell, IBM, Compaq, Sony, and Hewlett-Packard have established their own recycling programs in the US voluntarily - impact limited, only 15% recycled, and half end up in landfills
Some states have banned e-waste in landfills - sometimes this just ends up in other states or overseas
Global Impact: 2001 - Netherlands banned PlayStation (cadmium in wires)
The differences do not come from public pressure (little public awareness or concern), but landfill presence (US thinks that even though they are toxic they have not harmed public health yet, while EU is more long term)
1. Full citation.
Vogel, David. The Politics of Precaution: Regulating Health, Safety, and Environmental Risks in Europe and the United States. Princeton [N.J.: Princeton UP, 2012. Print.
2. Where did/does the author work, what else has s/he written about, and what are her/his credentials?
David Vogel is professor at the Haas School of Business and in the Department of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. His books include The Market for Virtue: The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility.
3. What are the topics of the text?
This chapter compares European and American regulations for the health, safety, and environmental risks of chemicals and hazardous substances.
4. What is the main argument of the text?
The main argument is that while the US chemical policy in the 1970s and the early 1980s often acted as an inspiration for European policymaking, the EU has taken over the role as leader in chemical policy development.
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?
8. What three points, details or references from the text did you follow up on to advance your perspective on environmental risk and precaution? (Provide citations, with a brief explanation of what you learned. One of these should be fully annotated, as your second required reading for each week.)
Notes
The US started regulating chemicals first (1976) before the EU (1979 & weaker) but the US has not made any changes since, while the EU has approved REACH in 2006, which is now stronger than the US's policies.
E-waste regulations in EU (WEEE, RoHS) | US does not think e-waste in landfills is a threat to public health and relies on voluntary efforts to promote e-waste recycling
EU 1976 - packaging and labeling system of dangerous substances to remove barriers from trade
1967 - chemicals had to be tested before they were marketed (did not pass b/c of opposition from Germany and Great Britain - two biggest chemical producers)
When the US enacted TSCA, European countries were upset because it affected trade with American markets - they put forth their own system/standards to continue trade
Sweden - most stringent chemical standards, joined the EU later and has a policy since 1969 to demonstrate safety of all environmentally harmful activities
1979 - substitution policy - hazardous chemicals must be replaced by less harmful ones
EU Pressures of reform - chemicals could travel long distances (Polar bears), endocrine disruption (frogs and birds), minister blood showed signs of chemical exposure
When Sweden joined the EU gave 4 years transition to adapt EU's chemical policies. Since then Sweden has been pushing EU to adapt more stringent policies.
REACH: requires chemical producers to demonstrate that the chemicals they produced or marketed did not adversely affect human health and eliminated the distinction between new and existing chemicals - precautionary principle
Chemical industry is 3rd largest in EU, most major chemical producer internationally (Germany, France, Italy, UK) - major opposition
industry was not opposed to new regulation (streamlined/harmonized/safer new chemicals may be harder to approve because of the old+new distinction, but that it was too burdensome and expensive, affect the competitiveness of the European industry, and will kill a lot of test animals
-> REACH changes: no data no market does not apply to chemicals produced in less than 10 tonnes + weakened substitution requirement
-> compromise did not please anyone: still too expensive (industry) + no longer equal provisions to all chemicals (public health groups, trade unions, NGOs)
debate: estimated costs varied,
US (George W Bush) hates REACH - claimed jobs would be lost (is this because people who make banned chemicals would not have work?), and would affect global trade - debated at WTO, REACH supported by American people, not people in power?
-> REACH was also proposed and drafted when economy was strong but was then passed in an economic downturn
-> Also includes any US chemical sold in the EU (DuPont is affected, so is DOW Chemical - they say it will cost a lot to register)
REACH vs TSCA:
EPA - asbestos 1989 - failed policy reform: under TSCA, existing chemicals are assumed safe until proven guilty, even when found in breast milk and even as toxicological evidence accumulates
Public Concerns about Chemical Safety in the US:
"Our Stolen Future" book published on endocrine disruptors - slow results, 2010 BPA restrictions
"TSCA puts the burden on the government to prove that a toxic chemical is at risk... REACH places the burden on the chemical industry - where it should be - to show that chemicals are safe" (p 173)
Kid-safe bill - monitor chemicals found in umbilical cords and see if they need to be banned or not.
-> Quite a ways to go before Congress is convinced there is a problem
States have passed their own legislation - Massachusetts in 1989, Maine, California in 1986 with Proposition 65 - any chemical with risk cannot be released in water and needs a warning label
e-waste, WEEE (EU)most controversial provision is that producers must organize and finance the treatment, recovery, and disposal of 60-80% of their own electronic and electrical waste - take-back systems or collective arrangements.
Electronic Waste and Recycling in the US:
no federal law for households (half of the e-waste generated is by households) | US generates more e-waste than any other nation
Best Buy, Dell, IBM, Compaq, Sony, and Hewlett-Packard have established their own recycling programs in the US voluntarily - impact limited, only 15% recycled, and half end up in landfills
Some states have banned e-waste in landfills - sometimes this just ends up in other states or overseas
Global Impact: 2001 - Netherlands banned PlayStation (cadmium in wires)
The differences do not come from public pressure (little public awareness or concern), but landfill presence (US thinks that even though they are toxic they have not harmed public health yet, while EU is more long term)