ENVIRONMENT-U.S.: Industry Must Pay Toxic Chemical Clean-up – Poll

By Emad Mekay Reprint | | Print |

Emad Mekay

WASHINGTON, Apr 18 2003 (IPS) - Eight out of 10 U.S. citizens want their government to phase out the use of certain toxic chemicals, replace them with non-polluting alternatives and force corporate polluters, not taxpayers, to pay for the clean-up, say the results of a poll by environmental groups here.

The survey, conducted in three states in 2002 but whose results were released only on Thursday, comes only a week after the American Chemistry Council, one of many bodies that lobby government on behalf of the chemical industry, irked civil society groups by announcing a 50-million-dollar deal with public relations firm Ogilvy and Mather to create an ad campaign to persuade married women that families are safer because of chemicals.

"This (claim) is inconsistent with the data we found," said Monica Rohde, coordinator of the Alliance for Safe Alternatives, an environmental group working to rid the United States of persistent toxic chemicals (PTCs) and the sponsor of the poll.

Such chemicals – including lead, PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), DDT, chlordanes and mercury – are known to pose extreme health risks. They tend to persist in living creatures and the environment, are easily transmittable through the food chain and can travel long distances through air or water.

Some PTCs are also able to imitate natural hormones and cause cancer in adults and adverse health and reproductive effects in the offspring of both humans and wildlife.

Nearly half of those polled in states in different regions of the country said that toxic chemicals in land, air, water and food represented an ”extremely” or ”very serious” problem in their state.

The data, compiled from interviews with 1,200 people in Maine, Michigan and Washington, show that more than three-quarters of respondents mistakenly believed that chemical companies are required to present information to government about the health impacts of the chemicals they create.

A majority also wrongly thought that the U.S. administration conducts safety checks on chemicals used in all primary consumer products.

But Washington, which promotes companies overseas as well as at home, does not demand health studies on new industrial chemicals unless they will be added to food, said the Alliance.

Health tests are also not required for chemicals used in cosmetics, toys, clothing, carpets or construction materials, it said, adding that non-chemical and non-polluting alternatives exist.

”A number of the safer alternatives are already available and could easily replace persistent toxic chemicals," says Rohde. ”Using these safer alternatives would have minimal costs and great benefits for public health.”

Alternatives include polyethylene instead of polyvinyl in PVCS and timber and non-chlorine bleaches.

Though contamination caused by PTCs is a problem in each of the states where the survey was conducted, respondents said they had heard little about the dangers such chemicals pose.

Maine, for example, has a history of fish being highly contaminated with mercury, while high levels of chemicals have been found in Michigan’s Great Lakes herring gulls.

Two in five of those polled answered that they had seen or heard "something" recently about problems caused by toxic chemicals locally, while only 14 percent said they had noticed ”a great deal” of information on the issue.

The alliance’s strategy for dealing with the chemicals includes gradually phasing out the use of PTCs; requiring that they be replaced by safer alternatives in agricultural, industrial or commercial processes; and requiring that polluters, not taxpayers, pay to clean up areas contaminated by PTCs.

Other groups say Washington is working on behalf of major corporations that would resist more regulations.

"Unfortunately, the federal government is not providing the appropriate safeguards against these dangerous chemicals,” said Lois Gibbs, executive director of the Centre for Health, Environment and Justice, one of the groups behind the survey.

"These decision makers would like us to believe that they are protecting the health of the American people, but in fact they are protecting the profits of the chemical companies," she said.

Other activists point a finger to the chemical industry itself. The U.S. Department of Energy calls the industry an integral part of the country’s economy, because it converts various metals, minerals and other raw materials into more than 70,000 products, like plastic bottles, paints and adhesives.

But, ”The chemical industry has ignored the public’s clear desire for safer alternatives, and has continued to use these highly dangerous toxic chemicals,” said Michael Belliveau of the Environmental Health Strategy Centre based in Portland, Maine.

The Alliance did offer some positive news, saying that because of environmentalists’ efforts to shut down and clean up sources of PTCs, levels of some dangerous chemicals, such as dioxins, have fallen in the past decade.

The groups vowed to continue fighting at the state level – where they say they have had most success to date – for stronger laws to protect their communities.

Activists say working at the state level has become more important because of a lack of federal regulations.

For instance, the Maine legislature will consider three bills in coming months to address health concerns about PTCs.

The bills would phase out mercury in consumer products, arsenic in pressure treated wood and a range of hazardous chemicals and PVC (polyvinyl chloride) plastic used in computers and other electronics.

In December 2002, 38 Massachusetts legislators co-sponsored a bill to create a wide-ranging programme that would replace toxic chemicals with safer alternatives.