Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Washington.
In 1976, an act was passed called the Toxic Substance Control Act. It grandfathered about
62,000 chemicals, and according to most critics was rather weak in forcing chemical companies
to really disclose to the EPA what their chemicals were made of. It put the burden of proof onto
the EPA to prove that these substances would not cause harm, where the chemical companies
did not have any burden, really, of proof on them. And as a result, there was a new
act that's been proposed. It's called the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011. It was introduced
by Senator Lautenberg from New Jersey. And he produced a little video on YouTube to introduce
his act. And here's a little clip from it.
MOLLY JONES GRAY, MOTHER AND ADVOCATE: I had struggled with fertility and repeated miscarriages.
And as I searched for an answer to why, why I was having such a hard time carrying a baby
to term, I discovered the connection between our environment, our toxic exposures, and
our health, particularly our reproductive health.
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT, CNN: What we don't know can really hurt us,
and there's a lot that we don't know.
DR. PHILIP LANDRIGAN, MOUNT SINAI MEDICAL CENTER: Eighty percent of the common chemicals
in everyday use in this country we know almost nothing about.
KEN COOK, PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP: From our own studies, we've tested
200 people. We found 482 chemicals. And there are 15,000 chemicals out there in heavy use.
How many are showing up in our blood? How many of them might pose a risk?
GRAY: We have no idea what the long-term health implications of these results are. And I do
not want my son or anyone's children to be our scientific experiment.
LISA JACKSON, EPA ADMINISTRATOR: The American people expect that all chemicals used in the
American economy are safe. But, Mr. Chairman, the 30-year-old law that gives EPA that authority
is outdated.
JAY: Now joining us from Amherst, Massachusetts, is James Heintz. He recently coauthored a
study with Bob Pollin at the PERI institute which came to the conclusion not only
was more regulation necessary, but more regulation would lead to more jobs. Thanks for joining
us, James.
JAMES HEINTZ, ***'T DIRECTOR, POLITICAL ECONOMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE: Thanks a lot.
JAY: So, first of all, what do you make of Lautenberg's act? Does it solve the problem?
HEINTZ: I think it incorporates a lot of the changes that many people have been recommending
in terms of how chemicals are regulated in the US and a lot of the reforms to the Toxic
Substances Control Act that have been proposed. So some of the major provisions: it would
require a minimum database on all chemicals that are bought and sold and used in the US,
also existing chemicals, as well as newly introduced chemicals. So it would change that
situation where the old existing chemicals were grandfathered in under the Toxic Substances
Control Act, the older piece of legislation, and so are virtually unregulated. So [incompr.]
require the same minimum database on all these substances. It would also prioritize certain
chemicals that we know are potentially harmful because of their profiles in terms of toxicity
or because they're bioaccumulative, meaning that there's evidence that they're building
up in our bodies over time as we become exposed to these chemicals. So the EPA would develop
a priorities list and would target those chemicals for immediate action.
JAY: Right. Now, in part one of our interview, we talked about some of the industry objections
to these kinds of reforms. But the main argument they make, other than the copyright issues
of more disclosure, is that more regulation leads to offshoring of jobs, so how do we compete
with China and other places. You've modeled this, and your main argument is more
regulation actually creates or forces more innovation. So what's your evidence of this?
HEINTZ: Well, there are several pieces to the story, so let me just kind of walk you
through. One is that the chemical industry, if we look at the past trends over the past
20 years and we extrapolate into the future, under the current regulations, the chemical
industry is going to shed even more jobs than it has in the past. Over the past 20 years,
it got rid of around 300,000 jobs. And we look at if it continues on the same path that
it has been following over the past 20 years, it's going to eliminate another 230,000 jobs
by the year 2030, basically cutting employment in half again. And so it's already destroying
jobs by competing on the basis of the same old products and the lack of innovation in
the industry. If we look at the fast-growing areas, some of the fastest-growing areas,
areas that are growing at 18 percent a year or 20 percent a year, a lot of these involve
greener alternatives or more sustainable, safer alternative, so things like producing
bioplastics, plastics produced out of biomass, or green building materials that doesn't have
formaldehyde in it or other carcinogens. So these areas are actually very--are rapidly
growing. They're rapidly growing. This is important because US market share in the chemical
industry has been falling. So by shifting into these rapidly growing areas, you're going
to get more jobs being created out of them.
JAY: Now, in terms of the--on the consumer end of things and protecting consumers, one
would think that if--you can produce these chemicals offshore, but if they don't meet
standards of what can be sold in Europe and the United States, that's another way of forcing
companies to have to produce and innovate. I know there's evidence that there's toys
made in China and they have two assembly lines: one assembly line for Europe does not contain
certain toxic chemicals, and the one for the United States does 'cause there's no regulation
against putting them into children's toys.
HEINTZ: Yeah, exactly. And so if you're concerned about offshoring, I mean, the current regulatory
system just makes the US kind of a low-cost market where you can just dump your toxic
products. And by improving the regulatory standards, what you would be doing is preventing
at least the products that contain toxic substances from coming into the US market until they
meet the same standards that are met elsewhere. And so, you know, updating these--one of our
main arguments is by updating this regulation, it not only provides new incentives
to innovate, 'cause you have to come up with new products that are as good as existing
ones, but not as harmful, not as toxic, not as threatening to the environment. So you
have that incentive in place that currently doesn't exist. It also gives a lot of information
that doesn't exist, 'cause consumers are demanding safer products. They don't want to be buying
toxic products. It's just that they don't know what is safe and what is not. Investors,
in terms of just the liability issues, don't want to be associated with funding corporations
that could turn out to be the next tobacco industry. And so there's a lot of concern
there. But again, investors don't have enough information. So one of the fundamental things
that legislative reform will do is just flood the marketplace with information that we currently
don't have. It makes markets work better for consumers and for investors, and it would
change the incentives so that the chemical industry would have an incentive to move into
these areas of safer and greener chemicals that create more jobs and that are the faster-growing
areas.
JAY: Well, there's a general feeling about--I think, in public opinion, and I think even
in the media, that if something's really bad enough, the EPA will catch it. If something's
really toxic enough, there'll be a lawsuit, and that will put an end to it. I think most
people go around thinking that this is more or less overseen in a way that would prevent
the worst abuses.
HEINTZ: I think you've hit the nail on the head is that a lot of people don't realize
how unregulated large portions of the chemical industry are. So some portions of the chemical
industry are highly regulated. So the pharmaceutical industry is regulated by the Food and Drug
Administration, the FDA. Pesticides, for some reason, historic reasons, are regulated separately.
So if you're looking at pesticides or pharmaceuticals, yeah, there are some regulations in place,
and there's regulations that are meant to assess health hazards linked to these products
and to protect consumers. But apart from those categories, a lot of the chemicals--and these
are often referred to as industrial chemicals, in that they're used in industry--they also
find their ways into a lot of consumer products--it's that category of chemicals that is virtually
unregulated. And it's very prevalent. There's an estimate that 96 percent of all manufactured
products in the US contain inputs from the chemical industry. And yet these inputs are
unregulated in terms of their health and safety risks.
JAY: Now, I guess we--given that the Republicans at the moment are trying to actually defund
the EPA to some extent, any sense of what the politics of this bill are?
HEINTZ: I think we still have to see how it plays itself out. I mean, within Washington
this bill has been introduced in the Senate. There's been no comparable piece of legislation
introduced in the current Congress in the House. There were two pieces of legislation
in the last Congress in both the House and the Senate, but those are effectively dead
now, so they have to be reintroduced. And the House dynamics are where it's really going
to be tricky because of the Republicans' hostility to the EPA. Having said that, I think there's
broad-based support across the political spectrum for people who really care about wanting to
know the toxic characteristics of the chemicals that they, their families, their kids are
exposed to on a day-to-day basis. State-level legislation--.
JAY: Just before we finish off, let's go back into one point in your report. You did some
modeling on one of the things where there needs to be innovation, you say, which is
bioplastics, less toxic waste to produce plastics. So what is that? And what did you find in
terms of job creation?
HEINTZ: So one area that we looked in, because the chemical industry is a very heterogeneous
industry--there's 80,000-plus substances being produced, and each of them's a little bit
different. So in order to look at job creation potential, we chose one kind of broad product
area, and that was the bioplasticsa area. And so plastics in the US and, well, worldwide
traditionally were manufactured as a byproduct of the petroleum industry. So they used petrochemicals
as the basic building block. But you can actually use biomass as the same basic building block
for many plastics that are out there. So we looked at what would be the job creation potential
of shifting from petroleum-based plastic production into bioplastics in the US, and we found that
if you shifted about a fifth of all of the plastics production in the US from petroleum-based
plastics into bioplastics, that alone, even if plastics production didn't increase at
all, would itself create 100,000 new jobs. It creates new jobs because you're using biomass
which is produced in the US, as opposed to petroleum, which is imported, and the fact
that a lot of the production of the inputs into bioplastics just use more labor. They
hire more people to produce a particular level of output. And for those two reasons, the
imports and the higher labor intensity of production, you get a much bigger jobs kick
out of bioplastics than you do out of traditional plastics.
JAY: Okay. If you want to see the whole report by James Heintz and Bob Pollin, we're going
to put a link to it down here below the video player. And I've mentioned in the first segment,
I should mention again, this report was commissioned by the Blue Green Alliance, which is a organization
of unions and green organizations. Thanks very much for joining us, James.
HEINTZ: Thanks a lot.
JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.