Introduction
- What is the issue/problem? The issue I have chosen to focus on is the under-regulation of potentially harmful chemicals that go into products the general public uses everyday (most specifically chemicals in baby formula).
· What current legislation has been proposed to address this? S.3209 : Safe Chemicals Act of 2010 (introduced in the senate)
Who is affected by the issue?- Who is affected the most? The people who are affected the most are the highly susceptible population, most specifically children and women of childbearing age.
- Who loses, and what do they lose? Women and children end up on the losing end because some chemicals they are exposed to can cause birth defects, developmental delays and cancer.
- Who gains, and what do they gain? The ones who gain the most are the companies that are allowed to use these chemicals; they are able to increase their profit margin because the potentially harmful chemicals are often inexpensive compared to the safer alternatives. Also the corporations save money because they are in charge of reporting on the safety of the chemicals they use, and in most cases this means the data the corporations submit is inaccurate.
- For the individuals mostly affected? Major consequences include high medical bills, major lifestyle changes to accommodate their child with special needs. And for the women who are unable to conceive, the emotional conflict is often overwhelming.
- For their families? The families are often the caretakers and support system for those people affected by the affects of these chemicals
- For society? As a society we foot the bill for high medical costs, we also suffer the loss of a potentially productive member of society, and we are subject to the harmful affects of these chemicals.
- What are the economic costs of the issue, and who bears these costs? Economic costs include medical bills, loss of productivity, and higher prescription costs. Also special education, and accommodations for children and a variety of therapy treatments for mothers and children.
- What are the economic benefits of the issue, and who benefits? The economic benefit it limited to cheaper products for consumers and the upper middle class has more disposable income that supposedly stimulates the economy.
- What are the social costs of the issue, and who bears these costs? The social costs to developmentally delayed children include but are not limited to the stigma of being “different”.
- What are the social benefits of the issue, and who benefits? I cannot really see to many benefits to this issue, buesides the issue sparks debate thus bring light to the issue and getting it into the public eye.
- What are the barriers to addressing this issue? The barriers to addressing the issue are that spending more money to fix a problem is not popular in the public eye and that there are not very feasible ways to regulate chemicals.
- How can they be overcome? By involving politicians and policy makers we can overcome barriers.
- What resources will we need to address this issue? We need public support, which means that the populations feel susceptible to the affects of the chemicals. Also we need to involve the policy makers and politicians.
- Where and how can they be tapped? By writing letters and visiting politicians, and advocating for the issue we can tap into these resources.
- What is the history of the issue in the community? This has been around for a long time the first act specifically related to this issue was first passed in 1976 to cover policies that were overlooked by other food and environmental safety acts.
- What past efforts were made to address it? The regulations of food, drugs and cosmetics acknowledged that there are issues with potentially harmful chemicals.
- What were the results? The other acts were successful but there is always room to improve upon these acts to insure the safety of the public.
- Who would support this issue? Environmentalists, Democrats, Upper-class women and Health Educators are most likely to support this Act.
- Who would oppose this issue? Republicans, Corporations, and lower income families would probably oppose this act.
- How can you involve allies and opponents in advocacy efforts? (What common ground can you share? How can you create a win-win for your allies and your opponents?) Involving both allies and opponents is difficult but if there is a way to cut funding from outdated projects and apply it to this act I think there would be little opposition from either side. This question will require further research.
- How do you want policy-makers to vote on this proposed policy? I recommend that policy-makers vote YES to S.3209!
One key element of this bill that is missing from the analysis is how scientists and regulators actually test these chemicals.
ReplyDeleteThe potential for TSCA reform is quite exciting, but it should be done in a way that doesn’t sacrifice millions of animals (for toxicity testing) in the name of better protection for human health and the environment. The revised bill needs to mandate and create market incentives to use nonanimal methods and tests.
The blueprint for the development and implementation of nonanimal testing is the National Academy of Sciences report, "Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy in 2007." This report calls for a shift away from the use of animals in toxicity testing. The report also concludes that human cell- and computer-based approaches are the best way to protect human health because they allow us to understand more quickly and accurately the varied effects that chemicals can have on different groups of people. They are also more affordable and more humane.
I agree that we should use the latest science to assess chemicals. Instead of poisoning animals and attempting to apply that data to humans — which hasn’t worked out so far — we need to make sure a reformed TSCA relies on modern human cell and computer-based methods that provide more accurate data on how a chemical acts on cells and what the impact on human health may be.
Molly, I enjoy how topical this subject is with your share and voice and the video in class! This is such an important issue considering that it directly impacts the health of our future generation! Nice work finding the history of the subject too! Interesting that the legislation goes back that many years without much action!
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly what we talked about in class. This topic freaks me out because of the impact it can have on our future generations. Good work on recognizing that this is a very important issue that we need to fix!
ReplyDeleteThis topic hits home for many women because for those of us that want kids in the future this is a scary thing. I do not want to be told I am not able to have kids because of something that was put into my food, drink, or other products that I was unaware of. On the other side I do not want to be putting chemicals into my kids or nieces or nephews that could be putting them in harm. Companies should not be allowed to put unregulated chemicals into our products it is unethical!
ReplyDeleteThis issue is just too important to pass up. I think you are right when you said that spending money to fix something like this isn't the most popular thing. People always want the "magic bullet" and sometimes there isn't one. In this case, we need to realize that spending money to tighten up regulation is probably the best option for everyone, ESPECIALLY children who are exposed to breastmilk.
ReplyDelete