Toxic Chemical Use and the Need to Advocate for Stricter Regulations

Toxic chemicals have quietly infiltrated nearly every aspect of our daily lives. Harmful substances are far more prevalent than we realize, from the products we use in our homes to the food we eat and the air we breathe. Many industries, including manufacturing, agriculture, and even cosmetics, continue to rely on toxic chemicals that pose serious risks to human health and the environment. According to World Health Organization survey, the latest data addendum estimates that 2 million lives and 53 million disability-adjusted life-years were lost in 2019 due to exposures to selected chemicals. These estimates continue to be higher than previously published estimates (1.6 million lives and 45 million disability-adjusted life-years lost in 2016, and 1.3 million lives and 43 million disability-adjusted life-years lost in 2012).

Despite growing evidence of these dangers, current regulations remain inadequate, leaving us vulnerable to exposure that could have long-term consequences. In fact, chemical production keeps rising higher and higher.

The Urgent Need for Stricter Toxic Chemical Regulations

In this article, let us look at why we need to be taking this entire matter more seriously than we currently are.

1. The Public Health Risks Are Too Severe

Toxic chemicals are present in many common products and environments, often without the public fully realizing the dangers they pose. A U.S. Geological Survey in August 2023 estimated that approximately 45% of drinking water samples tested in the U.S. contained detectable levels of at least one PFAS chemical. Substances like bisphenol A (BPA), per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and pesticides are widely used in manufacturing, yet they are linked to serious health conditions.

Toxic chemicals have caused a boatload of trouble everywhere they have been. PFAS in cookware is a common example. Similarly, PFAS chemicals found in certain fire extinguishers have led to the controversy surrounding the AFFF firefighter foam lawsuit.

It’s a terrible situation, but it just goes to show how much we need to be advocating for stricter regulation. The societal costs of toxic chemical exposure are substantial and often overlooked. These health conditions not only reduce the quality of life for individuals but also impose significant economic costs in terms of medical care and lost productivity.

Read More: Tap Water vs Bottled Water

2. Why Isn’t Better Regulation a Thing Yet?

One of the most significant barriers to effective chemical regulation is the lack of uniform global standards. Different countries have vastly different approaches to regulating toxic chemicals, which results in uneven levels of protection.

For instance, the European Union’s REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals) regulation is one of the most comprehensive frameworks in the world, banning or restricting thousands of harmful chemicals.

In contrast, regulations in the United States, governed by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), are far less stringent. As a result, many of the same chemicals remain in use. This disparity means that products banned in one country may still be legally manufactured or sold in another.

Moreover, from 1950 to 2000, global chemical production increased more than fifty-fold. This trend continues, with the chemical industry projected to nearly double its sales from 2017 to 2030.

Meanwhile, powerful lobbying by chemical manufacturers continues to play a significant role in preventing stricter regulations. According to a report by ProPublica, the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 was heavily influenced by chemical industry lobbyists. This meant that over 60,000 chemicals remained on the market without safety reviews.

In 1989, the EPA’s attempt to ban asbestos was overturned due to a requirement that regulations be the “least burdensome” to companies. Only in 2016 was the law amended, but compromises with industry limited stronger regulations. This influence from lobbyists often results in watered-down policies that fail to adequately protect public health and the environment.

3. What Type of Regulations Should We Be Advocating for?

The current system often allows harmful substances to circulate in the market long before they are recognized as dangerous. Implementing more stringent regulations would mean enforcing rigorous testing and safety evaluations before chemicals are approved for use.

If we focus on prevention, we can significantly reduce exposure to these toxins and avoid the long-term health risks that come from cumulative buildup. Similarly, stricter chemical regulations also play a critical role in safeguarding the environment, which is often the first casualty of unchecked chemical use.

We know that toxic chemicals leach into soil, water sources, and the atmosphere, leading to widespread contamination. As such, we need to advocate for regulations that would limit or ban the release of harmful chemicals into ecosystems, thereby preventing long-term damage. On the surface, it might appear that these situations are already regulated, but there are always loopholes that industries manage to find.

Thankfully, progress is happening. Recently, the EPA has finalized changes to strengthen TSCA implementation. This includes a rule ensuring that the EPA recovers 25% of authorized costs for chemical safety reviews. There have also been a number of changes to the TSCA Section 6, Chemical Management Rules.

Conclusion

The pervasive presence of toxic chemicals in our daily lives underscores an urgent need for stronger regulatory frameworks to protect public health and the environment. While it’s easy to get depressed at the glacial pace at which the TSCA works, we can’t give up. The more people learn about the dangers of toxic chemicals, the more advocates can push for faster action

Frequently Asked Questions