A study released by the University of California examined the effects of exposure to toxic chemicals and proposed a series of policy changes that would affect both the chemical industry and the university.
In 2004 alone, 208,000 cases of chronic disease attributable to workplace chemical exposures were exposed. Those cases cost the state of California directly and indirectly a sum of $1.4 billion, according to the report, which was released on Jan. 17.
Entitled “Green Chemistry: Cornerstone to a Sustainable California,” the report was funded by the state department of Toxic Substances Control, and was released by the Centers for Occupational and Environmental Health at UCLA and UC Berkeley. The report indicates that the system California uses to manage chemical emissions and production is flawed and negatively affects human health, the environment and the economy.
A myriad of diseases are caused by exposure to toxic substances, and skin ailments are especially common. Chloracne is a disease caused by such chlorinated aromatic compounds as dioxin, which is found in the exhaust of incinerators, said Shane Que Hee, a professor of environmental health sciences.
Dermatitis is another very common disease caused by chemicals that irritate the skin, Que Hee added.
Phthalates, a group of compounds used to soften plastic found in such children’s toys as rubber ducks, are another type of industrial substance that were found to cause health problems in children, said Timothy Malloy, a professor of law and one of five writers of the report.
A major reason for the usage of numerous industrial chemicals with harmful effects is a simple lack of pertinent information, said Elinor Fanning, the assistant director of research at the Center for Occupational and Environmental Health and another writer of the report.
“There are 80,000 plus chemicals listed in a national inventory,” Fanning said. “A majority of these chemicals haven’t been tested for toxicity.”
Fanning said that the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, the current bill governing the production and use of industrial chemicals, has been rendered inadequate due to policy failures.
“For the vast majority of industrial chemicals, there’s no comprehensive management system,” she said. “Our policy is not addressing the problem.”
The solution, the report states, is found in green chemistry, which seeks to eradicate the health and environmental hazards posed by chemicals when they are designed. The central tenet of this idea is to take note of any harm caused by a substance in every stage of its production and manufacturing.
“Proponents of green chemistry ask, “˜Why are we finding out about problems after they are known?'” said Fanning. “Why can’t we include considerations of toxicity in the design of products before those products are put into toys for children to chew or furniture for people to sleep on?”
The report, designed to grab the attention of policymakers, suggests a number of changes in state law. These proposals shift the burden to prove the safety of manufactured chemicals from public agencies to the producers themselves.
“It is the producers of chemicals who need to be required to provide hazard and toxicity labels,” Fanning stated.
Despite potential obstacles from chemical industry officials, the writers of the report remain optimistic about the success of their proposals.
“We’re going to see some possible changes both through regulation and … additional legislation,” Malloy said. “I don’t know if it’ll happen this year, but it won’t be too long.”