Consider the elements of an ideal chemical policy.
The Louisville Charter is a consensus-built position paper identifying the key elements of a good chemical policy.
In the article above, read through the headers in RED (h3 for screen readers). On the left-sidebar, there are background papers for each of the elements. Choose one or more of the background subjects to blog about.
The background subject I chose to discuss is "require safer substitutes and solutions." I think this so fundamental to an ideal chemical policy, and it seems so obvious and yet I don't think this has ever been implemented in any form near as comprehensive as it should be according to this position paper. I think it should be the government's duty to seek to eliminate the use of hazardous chemicals by requiring substitution with safer alternatives wherever ones exist, and by rewarding innovation and research for safer products. I think the law should regulate private companies' use of all chemicals and require the use of the safest product available. This should be the rule and not an option or exception. In order to use a chemical that has been deemed hazardous or potentially hazardous in any way, private companies and individuals should have to go through a process to justify and appeal the use of such a product for a narrow purpose and have this approved by the government on a case-by-case basis. I do not buy the argument that this would destroy industries. It would force them to spend the money they are currently using to please shareholders and provide their C-suite executives with bonuses and 8-figure salaries, on actually protecting the consumers who are using their products and being forced to bear the negative health consequences as well.
The background subject I chose to discuss is "require safer substitutes and solutions." I think this so fundamental to an ideal chemical policy, and it seems so obvious and yet I don't think this has ever been implemented in any form near as comprehensive as it should be according to this position paper. I think it should be the government's duty to seek to eliminate the use of hazardous chemicals by requiring substitution with safer alternatives wherever ones exist, and by rewarding innovation and research for safer products. I think the law should regulate private companies' use of all chemicals and require the use of the safest product available. This should be the rule and not an option or exception. In order to use a chemical that has been deemed hazardous or potentially hazardous in any way, private companies and individuals should have to go through a process to justify and appeal the use of such a product for a narrow purpose and have this approved by the government on a case-by-case basis. I do not buy the argument that this would destroy industries. It would force them to spend the money they are currently using to please shareholders and provide their C-suite executives with bonuses and 8-figure salaries, on actually protecting the consumers who are using their products and being forced to bear the negative health consequences as well.
Changing the narrative is necessary in order to sustain the environment. These companies have the resources and money to do it. They just need their hands to be forced and with the right policies that can happen.
ReplyDelete