Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them.

• Albert Einstein

Imagine that the next time you have an illness your doctor prescribes a heavy dose of antibiotics for which no pharmaceutical company, lab or other party knows anything about. Nobody knows of the potential side-effects; nobody knows the proper dosage, and nobody knows if prolonged use will cause any complications. Thankfully, this is a situation that rarely transpires during one’s typical doctor visit – for the vast majority of Americans it can stay in the realm of imagination since federal regulations safeguard the public from dangerous and ineffective pharmaceuticals. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires both the stringent pre-market testing and oversight of pharmaceuticals, the complete disclosure of pre-market testing results, and the unambiguous labeling and notification of side-effects, interactions and efficacy. The USFDA has even set up a system for reporting the unforeseen side-effects for pharmaceuticals and has developed an official recall procedure (Welker-Hood 2007: 3).

Alarming as it may sound, however, when it comes to the vast majority of the over 81,000 chemicals we can encounter in our daily lives – in both sickness and in health – not only do chemical manufacturers know almost nothing about their associated human and environmental hazards, but federal regulations require almost nothing in terms of pre-marketing test data, labeling, or even the full public disclosure of ingredients (Sattler 2007). These unregulated chemicals include anything ranging from phthalate esters like BBZP used in vinyl flooring to aromatics like dichlorobenzene used in bathroom deodorizers (Baier-Anderson et al. 2010: 15). Similarly, and as a direct result, the sum of current public awareness regarding the problem of environmental chemicals is also equivalent to almost nothing. The threatening implications of this awareness and data gap, are not only severe but, absent a significant policy response, will continue to grow. In 2006, a major report prepared for the California Senate Environmental Quality Committee on the issue warned that “the scale of chemical production is immense and will continue to expand globally.” They estimate that every day 42 billion pounds of chemicals are either produced in or imported to the U.S. alone, and that, globally, chemical production will approximately double every 25 years. Already, at current chemical production levels, the U.S. EPA has found that 700 or more chemicals are accumulating in human tissues. Further, a large proportion of these chemicals are being introduced to the nascent organ systems of fetuses and infants via their mother’s bloodstream and breast milk (Wilson 2006: xii).

Perhaps even more distressing than what we do not know, however, are the inferences we can make from what medical researchers have been able to confirm. For the very few environmental chemicals that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been able to require rigorous test data on, just 200 out of more than 80,000, a growing body of evidence is beginning to establish convincing linkages between chemical exposure and certain chronic diseases (US Department of Health and Human Services 2008; Baier-Anderson 2010; Caldwell & Keshaya 2006). The linkages connecting Asthma, now the most common chronic disease afflicting our nation’s children, to environmental chemicals are amongst the most well established by medical research community. Unexplainable by genetics, between 1980 and 1995 the number of people in the U.S. with asthma doubled (Woodruff et al. 2004). This doubling led to a flurry of research on the specific linkages between residential chemical emissions and various respiratory health problems in children. In a 2007 review of 21 of the most significant studies that emerged, Mark J. Mendell found the evidence to be overwhelming: children who were exposed to higher levels of certain chemical pollutants such as phthalate DEHP were significantly more likely to have a diagnosed case of asthma (Bornehag et al. 2004; Baier-Anderson 2010: 15).

Simply put, this multi-faceted problem is one that directly stems from the ills of inadequate policy. The current chemicals regulatory framework – established over three decades ago with the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA) – has grown exceptionally weak and strikingly outdated. Remarkable as it is, not only was Gerald Ford President the last time Congress found the strength to update our chemical regulatory framework, smoking was commonplace in airplanes and hospitals, seatbelt use was not mandated by law and lead was still frequently used in gasoline. Since that time, Americans and their elected representatives in Congress have moved to address all of those Issues and, as a direct result, we have witnessed significant improvements in public health – the greater good of society has been served. Similar movement on environmental chemicals has yet to see the light of day. Instead, regulators and manufacturers have, for many years now, knowingly allowed hundreds of human and ecologically hazardous chemicals to proliferate freely in our homes, workplaces and beyond.

Now, however, at the dawn of the second decade of the 21^st century, we have an opportunity to act to reverse this legislative stagnation. In recent weeks and months, the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works has held hearings on the issue of chemical regulatory reform, and the EPA has moved to require chemical manufacturers to provide more information on the human hazards of the chemicals used in their products. Equipped with persisting Democratic majorities in both chambers of congress, and with strong leadership at the EPA, a bold and sensible resolution to this pressing problem is well within reach.

This is the first post in a series that will aim to identify the cost of inaction and the promise of chemical regulatory reform.

Enjoy the marinade,

- Matt