CSPA strongly opposes programs that penalize companies based-upon ingredient selection choices. Defining what would be a “safer alternative” is a daunting and difficult task. For a “safer alternative” to be a truly viable alternative it must be commercially viable and as effective as the chemical that would be replaced. There are a number of instances in recent memory where forced “safer alternative” solutions have resulted in regrettable consequences.
For example, in 1979, gasoline producers began replacing lead with MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether) to help fuel burn more efficiently and reduce engine knocking. The levels of MTBE in fuel increased in 1990 as a result of the amendments to the Clean Air Act passed by Congress in 1992. MTBE has since presented serious concerns as it began turning up as a contaminant in ground water. Today, MTBE is still used in gasoline though many states have passed legislation to ban or restrict its use including the 1999 Executive Order signed by then Governor of California, Gray Davis, calling for the elimination of MTBE in gasoline sold in California.
Additionally, when industries transition to “safer alternatives” it is necessary that the alternative also be as effective as the chemical that is being replaced. Examples of regrettable consequences have resulted when industries have been forced to use less effective alternatives; thus resulting in greater product volume use, unsatisfied consumers, and sometimes dangerous alternative “homemade” product substitutions being created. One such dangerous example is consumers and repair shops that use gasoline to degrease automotive parts in the South Coast Air Quality Management District, where the use of higher volatile organic compound (VOC) solvent cleaning systems have been prohibited. This situation results in dangerous and flammable situations and undermines the goal of the VOC restrictions. Further mandatory use of less effective “safer alternatives” often times results in greater volumes of product use; thus resulting in larger natural resource use, higher exposure to a product, and a larger carbon-footprint due to increased distribution of products.
Efforts should instead be made to incentivize companies to use “safer alternatives” and to work with manufacturers in a partnership of information sharing and discussion of “safer alternative” characteristics and uses. Such partnerships are the most effective way to drive companies to user more “environmentally responsible ingredients” and ensure that negative consequences do not occur.
Additionally, market forces are already driving companies to develop and market products based upon their environmentally preferred characteristics. Consumers, retailers, and institutional product users are demanding “greener” products that meet consumer needs. If a safer alternative is truly commercially viable and effective, there is already a hugely enormous economic and market incentive for product manufacturers to move toward the use of this chemical.
The stated goal of the California Green Chemistry Initiative has been taking a collaborative approach to significantly reduce the impact of toxic chemicals on public health and the environment. The State of California should not consider the adoption of “safer” alternatives as the sole metric by which to measure the success of its initiative. There will likely be a number of mechanisms by which impacts will be reduced. For example, for existing products, measures which ensure that products are used as designed and most efficiently (according to directions) will eliminate unsafe exposures and unnecessary waste.
Also, the State needs to adopt meaningful metrics and their efforts should encompass a wide range of options. As the State gains experience with the options it has pursued it will learn where its resources may be used most effectively and can adapt its program to leverage the successes. If the State is unsuccessful in meeting its goal for reducing the impact of toxic chemicals it is likely because cost and performance of alternatives were inferior relative to consumers needs.
California should not focus narrowly on the adoption of alternatives as the yardstick to measure the success of the Green Chemistry Initiative. As Governor Schwarzenegger has stated, “there needs to be a systematic way . . . where California’s scientists can work together with experts throughout the world to evaluate the health effects of chemicals, assess the risks they pose, and ensure the safety of possible alternatives receives the same consideration.”
GMA opposes penalties for ingredient selection choices. It is very difficult and uncertain to determine what a safer alternative is. In considering whether a substitute is preferable to an existing chemical, a number of complex questions arise, such as: • How is it determined what a safer alternative is? • How are the diverse uses (and corresponding exposures) of alternatives considered? • How are efficacy and cost considered and accounted for? It is critical that California avoid unintended consequences that can result from failing to consider the full life-cycle impacts of a substitute. Credible, robust analysis is necessary to support sound risk management decisions and to avoid burden shifting or regrettable substitution with unintended adverse consequences, such as occurred with MTBE.
Rather than focusing on penalties, California should focus on incentivizing innovation.
- Banishment from California. Garnishment of all assets held in the state (to pay for destruction of their hazardous products and pay for the UCBGC program). - Cancellation of Netflix subscriptions for all employees.
Seriously, laws already exist to deal with those who present unreasonable risks to the public or the environment. A reasonable risk is one for which there is a need for the product but there is no economically and technically safer alternative. The rub comes when anything other than a free and knowledgeable market exists. Plus, who decides if something is “needed” – a government bureaucrat, a professor? Instead of looking for users to beat up, spend your effort on educating people to understand the life cycle impacts of the things they buy and use and the market will drive better solutions.
The term safer is too broad and undefined to appropriately answer this question. Market incentive is a much more powerful and affective force than penalties. For example, California has been regulating vehicle emissions for decades now. Some progress has been made but it has been very slow. Gasoline going to $5 per gallon will do in just a few years what California could not in decades. Instead of focusing on the products how about focusing on the processes. Development of products along a process that results in the most sustainable product with currently available technology would insure that the safest alternatives were brought to market. Companies following these practices should be rewarded and encouraged to continually improve those processes in collaboration with government and university.
The appropriate response would be to offer information and case studies of the benefits of using safer alternatives, with punitive measures only in those cases where worker or consumer safety becomes an immediate concern. Educational outreach is imperative and must take into account the wide variety of characteristics of the population. Some companies will have a much more difficult time implementing changes due to the nature of the life science business, and even for companies that can change quickly, some processes will not lend themselves to change and for some chemicals there will be no safer alternative. In nature, there are examples of microbes that thrive on sulfur and would perish in "clean" and safe environments. There must be room for a variety of perspectives and consideration on a case by case basis.
Any enforcement response by the State of California for failure of a company or end user to use "safer" chemical or process alternatives should be careful, measured and implemented only when the same or better results (end products or use) can be shown to be economically and practically achieved.
The term "safer alternative" is too imprecise and shows potential for misuse within the initiative.
Web Coordinator
10 Comments
Reader Comments (10)
CSPA strongly opposes programs that penalize companies based-upon ingredient selection choices. Defining what would be a “safer alternative” is a daunting and difficult task. For a “safer alternative” to be a truly viable alternative it must be commercially viable and as effective as the chemical that would be replaced. There are a number of instances in recent memory where forced “safer alternative” solutions have resulted in regrettable consequences.
For example, in 1979, gasoline producers began replacing lead with MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether) to help fuel burn more efficiently and reduce engine knocking. The levels of MTBE in fuel increased in 1990 as a result of the amendments to the Clean Air Act passed by Congress in 1992. MTBE has since presented serious concerns as it began turning up as a contaminant in ground water. Today, MTBE is still used in gasoline though many states have passed legislation to ban or restrict its use including the 1999 Executive Order signed by then Governor of California, Gray Davis, calling for the elimination of MTBE in gasoline sold in California.
Additionally, when industries transition to “safer alternatives” it is necessary that the alternative also be as effective as the chemical that is being replaced. Examples of regrettable consequences have resulted when industries have been forced to use less effective alternatives; thus resulting in greater product volume use, unsatisfied consumers, and sometimes dangerous alternative “homemade” product substitutions being created. One such dangerous example is consumers and repair shops that use gasoline to degrease automotive parts in the South Coast Air Quality Management District, where the use of higher volatile organic compound (VOC) solvent cleaning systems have been prohibited. This situation results in dangerous and flammable situations and undermines the goal of the VOC restrictions. Further mandatory use of less effective “safer alternatives” often times results in greater volumes of product use; thus resulting in larger natural resource use, higher exposure to a product, and a larger carbon-footprint due to increased distribution of products.
Efforts should instead be made to incentivize companies to use “safer alternatives” and to work with manufacturers in a partnership of information sharing and discussion of “safer alternative” characteristics and uses. Such partnerships are the most effective way to drive companies to user more “environmentally responsible ingredients” and ensure that negative consequences do not occur.
Additionally, market forces are already driving companies to develop and market products based upon their environmentally preferred characteristics. Consumers, retailers, and institutional product users are demanding “greener” products that meet consumer needs. If a safer alternative is truly commercially viable and effective, there is already a hugely enormous economic and market incentive for product manufacturers to move toward the use of this chemical.
The stated goal of the California Green Chemistry Initiative has been taking a collaborative approach to significantly reduce the impact of toxic chemicals on public health and the environment. The State of California should not consider the adoption of “safer” alternatives as the sole metric by which to measure the success of its initiative. There will likely be a number of mechanisms by which impacts will be reduced. For example, for existing products, measures which ensure that products are used as designed and most efficiently (according to directions) will eliminate unsafe exposures and unnecessary waste.
Also, the State needs to adopt meaningful metrics and their efforts should encompass a wide range of options. As the State gains experience with the options it has pursued it will learn where its resources may be used most effectively and can adapt its program to leverage the successes. If the State is unsuccessful in meeting its goal for reducing the impact of toxic chemicals it is likely because cost and performance of alternatives were inferior relative to consumers needs.
California should not focus narrowly on the adoption of alternatives as the yardstick to measure the success of the Green Chemistry Initiative. As Governor Schwarzenegger has stated, “there needs to be a systematic way . . . where California’s scientists can work together with experts throughout the world to evaluate the health effects of chemicals, assess the risks they pose, and ensure the safety of possible alternatives receives the same consideration.”
GMA opposes penalties for ingredient selection choices. It is very difficult and uncertain to determine what a safer alternative is. In considering whether a substitute is preferable to an existing chemical, a number of complex questions arise, such as:
• How is it determined what a safer alternative is?
• How are the diverse uses (and corresponding exposures) of alternatives considered?
• How are efficacy and cost considered and accounted for?
It is critical that California avoid unintended consequences that can result from failing to consider the full life-cycle impacts of a substitute. Credible, robust analysis is necessary to support sound risk management decisions and to avoid burden shifting or regrettable substitution with unintended adverse consequences, such as occurred with MTBE.
Rather than focusing on penalties, California should focus on incentivizing innovation.
- Banishment from California. Garnishment of all assets held in the state (to pay for destruction of their hazardous products and pay for the UCBGC program).
- Cancellation of Netflix subscriptions for all employees.
Seriously, laws already exist to deal with those who present unreasonable risks to the public or the environment. A reasonable risk is one for which there is a need for the product but there is no economically and technically safer alternative. The rub comes when anything other than a free and knowledgeable market exists. Plus, who decides if something is “needed” – a government bureaucrat, a professor? Instead of looking for users to beat up, spend your effort on educating people to understand the life cycle impacts of the things they buy and use and the market will drive better solutions.
The term safer is too broad and undefined to appropriately answer this question. Market incentive is a much more powerful and affective force than penalties. For example, California has been regulating vehicle emissions for decades now. Some progress has been made but it has been very slow. Gasoline going to $5 per gallon will do in just a few years what California could not in decades.
Instead of focusing on the products how about focusing on the processes. Development of products along a process that results in the most sustainable product with currently available technology would insure that the safest alternatives were brought to market. Companies following these practices should be rewarded and encouraged to continually improve those processes in collaboration with government and university.
The appropriate response would be to offer information and case studies of the benefits of using safer alternatives, with punitive measures only in those cases where worker or consumer safety becomes an immediate concern. Educational outreach is imperative and must take into account the wide variety of characteristics of the population. Some companies will have a much more difficult time implementing changes due to the nature of the life science business, and even for companies that can change quickly, some processes will not lend themselves to change and for some chemicals there will be no safer alternative. In nature, there are examples of microbes that thrive on sulfur and would perish in "clean" and safe environments. There must be room for a variety of perspectives and consideration on a case by case basis.
Any enforcement response by the State of California for failure of a company or end user to use "safer" chemical or process alternatives should be careful, measured and implemented only when the same or better results (end products or use) can be shown to be economically and practically achieved.
The term "safer alternative" is too imprecise and shows potential for misuse within the initiative.
Perhaps borrowing from past Federal programs the estblishment of "Best Management Practices" should be considered.
Perhaps borrowing from past Federal programs the estblishment of "Best Management Practices" should be considered.
Perhaps borrowing from past Federal programs the estblishment of "Best Management Practices" should be considered.