Rachel's Precaution Reporter #80
Wednesday, March 7, 2007

From: South Delta [British Columbia] Leader ..............[This story printer-friendly] Leader [Printer-friendly version]
March 2, 2007

POWER LINE OPPONENTS GRANTED COURT DATE

[Rachel's introduction: Indigenous people of the Tsawwassen First Nation in British Columbia, Canada, are opposing a high-voltage power line, basing their legal argument on the precautionarty principle. Their case will be heard in court later this month.]

By Philip Raphael, South Delta Leader praphael@southdeltaleader

With an increase in political momentum to help safeguard the environment, Tsawwassen [First Nation] residents opposed to local power line upgrades feel confident about their upcoming court appeal.

Maureen Boradfoot, spokesperson for Tsawwassen Residents Against Higher Voltage Overhead Lines [TRAHVOL], said recent federal funding to help provide shore-based power for ships, and B.C.'s [British Columbia, Canada] commitment to become more "green" could have an affect on their case which is scheduled to be heard in B.C. Court of Appeal March 26 and 27.

"You can never predict with any great certainty what the outcome of a court case will be, but we are confident our appeal will have a favourable ruling," Broadfoot said.

A particular reason to be optimistic was the recent inclusion of TRAHVOL's appeal based on the precautionary principle which maintains that in the absence of scientific agreement that something may be of harm to human health, that prudent avoidance or a precautionary approach should be taken, Broadfoot said.

Residents fear the electro magnetic fields from the lines contribute to incidents of cancer, especially leukemia in children. That contention is hotly debated among environmental and power utility advocates.

"Hopefully the court will rule that Crown Corporations cannot run roughshod over communities," Broadfoot said, adding TRAHVOL would like to see the lines diverted along an industrial corridor serving the Deltaport container ship facility.

TRAHVOL is also appealing B.C. Transmission Corporation's power line plan on the basis the upgrade -- which is being undertaken to serve increasing demands from customers on Vancouver Island -- represents a significant change in use along a 50-plus-year-old BC Hydro right-of- way which cuts across roughly 147 homes, churches, schools, daycares and commercial properties.

Copyright Copyright 2007 South Delta Leader

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Environmental Health Perspectives ..................[This story printer-friendly]
February 15, 2007

NEW PATHWAYS TO DISEASE PREVENTION

[Rachel's introduction: The new director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) wants to focus NIEHS not on eliminating the causes of disease but on medical "intervention between exposure and disease" -- and he wants to label these medical interventions "prevention." More pills, anyone? This is a sad state of affairs for one of the nation's premier public health institutions.]

By David A. Schwartz, director, NIEHS

As scientists, communication -- not only with those outside our area of expertise but also with those within our scientific sphere -- is an important responsibility, though often an ongoing challenge. As NIEHS director, I increasingly realize that, as the writer Andre Gide said, "The most important things to say are those which often I did not think necessary for me to say -- because they were too obvious." In this case, the thing that I thought was obvious, but now believe needs to be clearly reiterated and more fully described, is the focus of my vision and the work of this institute on the prevention of human disease.

In retrospect, I can see how discussions of my role as a physician and my strong emphasis on the value of clinical and translational research to the environmental health sciences may have created a misperception that my sole interest is clinical disease. People tend to talk most often and loudly about those things which they are passionate about. In reality, it is my role as a physician that has enabled me to recognize that clinical research and fundamental research in disease prevention are not separate paths, but rather intricately and necessarily connected approaches to achieving health. Though I have witnessed the enormous value of clinical and translational research to alleviate suffering from disease, I deeply believe that a far greater impact on human health can be attained by harnessing the power of this research toward understanding the etiology of disease and focusing this knowledge on preventing illness and death. It is this concept that is embodied in the NIEHS vision, which, as stated in our Strategic Plan, is "to prevent disease and improve human health by using environmental sciences to understand human biology and human disease."

A changing concept of disease prevention may also contribute to confusion on this issue. There are different approaches to preventing environmentally mediated disease. The first is to prevent all exposure to harmful environmental agents. The historical work of this institute has had a profound effect in this area by identifying agents such as metals, chemicals, and pollutants, and informing public policies to protect against them. But technology, time, money, and behavioral and societal factors are all real and constant hindrances to these efforts. A second approach is to identify those populations who may be most susceptible to environmental insults due to factors such as age, genetics, and health status, and then prevent exposures to these populations discretely. Ongoing studies funded by the NIEHS are focused on examining just such populations, but many of the same limitations of the first approach also apply here. A third approach, intervention between exposure and disease, is the most ambitious scientifically and a natural progression of the field of environmental health. Ambitious because we are pushing the bounds of knowledge and technology in our quest for understanding the biological effects of environmental exposures on mechanisms of human disease, and a natural progression because of the enormous potential of this approach to change the way we view disease and our ability to prevent it.

In reality, all three approaches complement each other and will continue to be part of our arsenal of disease prevention tools. Examples from the NIEHS research portfolio illustrate various ways in which we are exploring disease prevention strategies. A project in a low-income community in Washington State is implementing multilevel strategies including innovative housing for people with asthma, clinical asthma care, in-home education, and resident empowerment, along with scientific assessment and analysis, to decrease asthma morbidity and improve the built environment of public housing. Another project is developing bioinformatics tools to identify polymorphic promoter response elements in candidate environmental response genes such as p53 to help determine the limits of human variability in risk assessment and thereby aid in disease prevention. The newly instituted Exposure Biology Program will move the science toward intervention between exposure and disease by providing sensitive biomarkers of exposure, susceptibility, and early biological response.

It is my belief that in the near future, the greatest impacts on global environmental health in terms of reduced morbidity and mortality will be made through breakthroughs in our basic understanding of the causes and mechanisms of disease. As we continue to develop new directions and priorities for the NIEHS, I hope that it will become ever more clear that in no way are we abandoning our long- held goal of disease prevention, but rather we are expanding our sights and exploring new pathways for understanding human biology and disease, always with this critical goal in mind.

David A. Schwartz, MD Director, NIEHS and NTP E-mail: david.schwartz@niehs.nih.gov

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Le Figaro ..........................................[This story printer-friendly]
March 5, 2007

FRENCH ETHICS GROUP RECOMMENDS PRECAUTION FOR NANOTECHNOLOGY

[Rachel's introduction: The French National Consultative Committee on Ethics has recommended a precautionary approach to the development of nanotechnology.]

CCNE is the French National Consultative Committee on Ethics. In their latest work on nanosciences they call for more fundamental research and more transparency to better understand nanoproducts effects on humans. They take for example the REACH law on chemical products.

CCNE was founded in 1983 to give advice on ethical problems and social questions induced by advancements in scientific knowledge in the fields of life sciences, medicine, and health. This is a completely independent committee and its role is only consultative. It is made up of representatives of the main philosophical and spiritual families, people qualified in the field of ethics (researchers, doctors, nurses, politicians, jurists).

They published their recommendations on ethical questions asked by nanosciences, nanotechnologies and health and more especially on potential risks for human health and for individual liberties. They warned on the global attitude that privileges technologic performance and commercial profitability and regrets that so little worldwide nanotechnologies expenditure are dedicated to the study of risks and side effects.

Thus recommendations follow the precautionary principle, which implies more [the need for] fundamental research on risks before diffusing nano-applications. It also implies more transparency on nanotechnologies researches that is not currently effective because of the requirements for confidentiality related to industrial applications.

Finally they recommend the creation of a European [nanotechnology] law like REACH on chemical products, based on transparency and an extreme vigilance of nanotechnology's consequences on individual liberties.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Environmental Health Perspectives ..................[This story printer-friendly]
March 1, 2007

ENVIRONMENT: CALIFORNIA OUT IN FRONT

[Rachel's introduction: U.S. [chemical] industries have fought against REACH [Europe's new law for industrial chemicals], which will affect their exports to Europe. Now some industry stakeholders worry that California's potential green chemistry policies could be a stepping stone toward REACH implementation in the United States.]

By Charles W. Schmidt, Environmental Health Perspectives

When it comes to ecological diversity, California has it all: snow- capped mountains, wide deserts, scenic beaches, and some of the worst environmental problems in the country. Six of the country's ten most polluted cities-Los Angeles, Bakersfield, Fresno-Madera, Visalia-Porterville, Merced, and Sacramento-are found in California, where children face fivefold greater risks of reduced lung function compared with children who live in less-polluted areas. Beyond its air pollution problems, California could also face catastrophic consequences from climate change. Assuming warming trends continue at their present rates, experts generally agree that the Sierra snowpack- which is crucial to the state's drinking water supply-could decline by 50-90% by the century's end.

With statistics like that, environmentalism has become a powerful force in California. According to a 2006 survey conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), a San Francisco-based research organization, 65% of Californians don't think the federal government is doing enough to combat global warming. Two-thirds of the population support state efforts to address climate change, while an equal number support tougher air pollution standards on new vehicles, even if it makes vehicles more expensive.

California legislators have responded with some of the strongest environmental laws ever passed. Whereas the U.S. government has yet to regulate carbon dioxide, California recently passed AB 32, a groundbreaking law signed by governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in September 2006 that directs industries to reduce all greenhouse gas emissions by 25% over the next 13 years. Another law-AB 1493, which was enacted in 2002-directs automakers to reduce greenhouse gases emitted by passenger vehicles sold in California after 2009, with a 30% reduction in statewide vehicular emissions by 2016. (That law is currently being challenged by a lawsuit from the automotive industry.)

This year, California will consider a statewide green chemistry policy that could exceed the scope of the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which sets national policy on chemicals used in products and industrial processes. Local governments have also tightened environmental controls. San Francisco, for instance, recently passed the country's first ban on baby products containing bisphenol A and has also regulated levels of phthalates in these products. Bisphenol A and phthalates are both suspected endocrine disruptors.

Coming from one of the world's largest economies, these preemptive legislative efforts have impressive clout. "California provides an example [for other states]," says Cympie Payne, associate director of the California Center for Law and Policy at the University of California (UC), Berkeley. "Other states find it easier to model their own laws on those that another state has already put into effect."

Clearing the Air

California's aggressive environmental policies build on a long history. In 1965, the state became the first to regulate vehicle exhaust by setting limits on hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide emissions. Two years later, the newly formed California Air Resources Board (ARB)-now part of the California EPA-set the nation's first air quality standards for total suspended particulates, photochemical oxidants, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and other pollutants.

Early on, U.S. lawmakers recognized that California had a terrible problem with air pollution. Living in low-density sprawl, Southern Californians travel everywhere by car, generating exhaust plumes that get trapped at ground level in the area's low-lying valleys. Truck traffic across the Mexican border, in addition to emissions from the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex-the largest man-made harbor in the western United States-also contribute to the region's poor air quality.

To give the state more leverage on pollution control, Congress allowed California to enforce pollution standards that might be more stringent than those passed by the federal government. That allowance was first introduced in the Federal Air Quality Act of 1967, and later codified in Section 209 amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA). California has since set the nation's tightest standards for ozone and particulate matter, according to ARB spokesman Jerry Martin. Other states, meanwhile, have no comparable authority when it comes to devising their own air quality standards. Rather, the CAA allows them to choose whether to adopt federal standards or the more stringent California standards.

If California's strict environmental policies were triggered by traditional air pollution, its current reputation as a green pioneer has more to do with recent initiatives on climate change. By signing AB 1493, governor Gray Davis put California at the leading edge of government efforts to regulate greenhouse gases. Reflecting California's legislative influence, ten other states-New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Maine, Vermont, Washington, and Oregon-along with Canada have all adopted the same goal.

But AB 1493 has its detractors, particularly among the auto industry. The stakes are huge for U.S. automakers: California accounts for 10% of their total sales. Auto industry lobbyists have overcome every congressional attempt to improve fuel efficiency standards since 1990. But Martin stresses that although better fuel efficiency does advance AB 1493's goals, automakers have other alternatives for reducing emissions, such as cutting back on the use of halogenated refrigerants, which exceed carbon dioxide in terms of greenhouse potency. Automakers can also sell more "flex-fuel" vehicles that run on ethanol blends, he says.

According to Martin, this flexibility in options distinguishes AB 1493 from corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, which dictate only the minimum average miles per gallon that cars of a particular class need to achieve. "Our standards are for greenhouse gases; we call them global warming standards," Martin says. "And they include not just carbon dioxide but other gases like methane and [halogenated refrigerants]."

But the auto industry sees things differently. Charlie Territo, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a national industry trade group, calls AB 1493 a thinly veiled attempt to regulate fuel economy. Moreover, he adds, California has no authority to impose higher fuel economy standards because its special state status on the environment applies only to the CAA. CAFE standards, on the other hand, are administered by the National Energy Policy and Conservation Act, under which California has no special status. Equally significant, California can set its own state standards only for criteria pollutants listed under the CAA, a list that doesn't yet include carbon dioxide, he says.

The U.S. Supreme Court will determine later this year if the U.S. EPA must regulate carbon dioxide as an air pollutant. At issue is Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., wherein Massachusetts represents a coalition of stakeholders who believe carbon dioxide should be regulated to limit global warming. The U.S. EPA doesn't want to regulate carbon dioxide without better knowledge of the gas's role in climate change, according to James R. Milkey, the counsel of record for the Supreme Court case. Meanwhile, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and other auto industry groups have sued California, Rhode Island, and Vermont, arguing that the application of AB 1493 (and equivalent counterparts in other states) is illegal. The suit, originally scheduled for trial in California beginning 31 January 2007, has been postponed until the spring pending the Supreme Court's decision.

Meeting Legislative Goals

The upcoming Supreme Court decision could also be critical for AB 32's goal of reducing California's total greenhouse gas emissions to 25% below 1990 levels by 2020. A press release issued by California's Office of the Governor on 27 September 2006 stated that AB 32 is a "landmark bill that establishes a first-in-the-world, comprehensive program of regulatory and market mechanisms to achieve real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases." Says Martin, "AB 1493 just focuses on cars, but AB 32 covers everything that uses energy in some way. And since California is the twelfth largest producer of greenhouse gases in the world, that's a big deal."

The law directs the ARB to determine how California can meet its emissions reduction goal. Toward that end, the board will develop appropriate regulations (which it will also enforce) and create a reporting system to track and monitor greenhouse gas emissions. With ARB approval, the law could allow California industries to trade emissions on global markets. That effort would apply economic forces to the goal of limiting emissions below a statewide cap yet to be identified, which will be phased in starting in 2012.

As a first priority, Martin says the agency is producing an emissions inventory, to quantify how much carbon dioxide California industries and their suppliers produce. At the same time, the ARB is compiling a list of "discrete early actions" -- simple measures -- to limit greenhouse gases that can be phased in by 2010. Along those lines, Schwarzenegger recently ordered that the carbon content of all transportation-related fuels burned in California must be reduced by 10% by 2020. The ARB is currently reviewing the governor's order to see if it qualifies as a discrete early action under AB 32. Martin suggests that it might, and adds that fuel companies could meet the mandate in a number of ways, for instance, by selling more biofuels.

In contrast to AB 1493, lawsuits against AB 32 haven't been filed. That's because specific measures targeting individual industries aren't yet known, Martin explains. Once those measures are identified, affected industries will sue accordingly, he predicts.

Meanwhile, stakeholders everywhere are anxious to know if California can limit greenhouse gases without wrecking its economy. "It's going to be tricky," concedes Dominic DiMare, vice president of government relations at the California Chamber of Commerce, which opposed both AB 1493 and AB 32. "The law could harm the economy, but it could also help it, and that depends on how it's implemented, which is something we still don't know. My concern is that some companies might leave California rather than face those restrictions. Then they might wind up in other areas where they pollute even more than they do here."

Countering those concerns, UC Berkeley adjunct professor David Roland- Holst was quoted in the 15 September 2006 New York Times as estimating that AB 32 could pump $60 billion and 17,000 jobs into the California economy by 2020, by attracting investment in alternative energy. Roland-Holst could not be reached for comment.

Green Chemistry

Apart from global warming, California's next big effort on the environment could come from a burgeoning green chemistry policy-that is, one that identifies safer chemicals and processes. That pending effort responds to a 2006 UC Berkeley report titled Green Chemistry in California: A Framework for Leadership in Chemicals Policy and Innovation, which concluded that federal policies under TSCA don't do enough to protect public health. The 130-page document was drafted at the request of the California legislature.

According to lead author Michael P. Wilson, a research scientist at the UC Berkeley Center for Occupational and Environmental Health, TSCA's data requirements impede the transparency and oversight that are necessary to protect public health and allow proper function of the chemicals market. TSCA does not require producers to generate data on chemical toxicity, he says, and that produces uncertainty for companies that purchase chemicals. Moreover, he says, TSCA constrains the government's ability to control the sale of hazardous chemicals, which allows these substances to remain competitive in the market. The report concluded that these market conditions have dampened interest by industry in green chemistry.

"We have a failure in the U.S. chemicals market," Wilson stresses. "Chemicals are marketed on the basis of their function, price, and performance, but the hazard piece is still largely missing."

Responding to the report's message, state senator Joe Simitian, who chairs the California Senate Environmental Quality Committee, is investigating options for a new green chemistry policy that might address TSCA's shortcomings. Bruce Jennings, a senior advisor to the California legislature, with whom Simitian collaborates, says a number of green chemistry bills could go to the floor this year. One would create a clearinghouse on alternatives to hazardous chemicals, geared toward small companies that lack access to that type of information and patterned after a similar U.S. EPA program, Design for the Environment. Another would require the producers of high production volume chemicals to submit environmental health information to California, in addition to information about the use and disposal of such chemicals.

Simitian was quoted in the 2 November 2006 Capitol Weekly as saying that he wants to apply a precautionary approach to California's emerging chemical regulations. That approach-popular among European Union countries-shifts the burden of proof regarding chemical safety to manufacturers instead of regulators. The precautionary principle, as it is often called, drives some of the European Union's most sweeping-and controversial-environmental initiatives, particularly the REACH (Registration, Evaluation, and Authorisation of Chemicals) directive, which requires that chemicals manufactured or imported at volumes of greater than one metric ton be registered with the European Chemicals Agency. Under the REACH initiative, which goes into effect in June 2007, some toxic chemicals could be phased out in favor of less toxic alternatives.

U.S. industries have fought against REACH, which will affect their exports to Europe. Now some industry stakeholders worry that California's potential green chemistry policies could be a stepping stone toward REACH implementation in the United States.

"We're concerned this could impose added costs on California businesses," says John Ulrich, executive director of the Chemical Industry Council of California, a trade group. "Anything that increases the cost of manufacturing across the board in California will discourage manufacturing here. I'm afraid a legislative package that claims to be green chemistry will go down a conventional route of legislating based on unfounded science, using timetables that aren't credible or achievable."

While claiming it's still too early to know what form the policy will take, Jennings stresses the goal isn't to replicate REACH or any other European initiative. "We want to complement what they're doing," he says. "And there are plenty of industry players who face challenges with operating in global markets when they lack information about the chemical content of their products. Chemical producers may be troubled by changes in the law, but we think downstream users will welcome efforts to give them more information."

In support of that view, Rachelle Reyes Wenger, who manages public policy and advocacy at Catholic Healthcare West, a San Francisco-based company that owns 42 hospitals and employs 44,000 people, says better information on chemical safety and alternative products can be good for business. She notes that her company recently awarded a multiyear $70 million contract to a company that supplies intravenous bags that do not contain polyvinyl chloride, phthalates, or other toxic chemicals. "With our purchasing power, we can really make a difference," she says. "A comprehensive chemical policy could hurt finances initially, but not in the long run. It's ultimately better not just for the financial bottom line, but also for the moral bottom line."

And of course, for the environmental bottom line. California's lawmakers have apparently decided that sacrifices made now to achieve environmental goals are worth the future benefits, not just for health and ecology, but for the long-term sustainability of the state's industries. Ultimately, California's paving a road forward on which others may inevitably follow.

Source: Environmental Health Perspectives

Search

Entire Site RegionalGovt. MeetingsCAUSWorldColumnsOp-EdSci/TechLifeOdd NewsCartoon Advanced Search

Get the YubaNetAlert Weekly email newsletter featuring our latest regional stories and more

News Headlines Tibet activists to hold rallies in Berkeley, S.F.

January cold spell inflicts hardship on the state's citrus workers

Early primary plan is sent to governor

Six Suspects Arrested in Sturgeon Poaching Operation

L.A. facing its driest year ever

Court against flier promoting 'family values'

Water officials take steps to halt spread of mollusk

Small California School Sees Big Test Score Gains

Hot Fuel Solution Derailed By Oil Companies

Comparison shopping for medical care

More

Copyright 2007 YubaNet.com, all rights reserved. Email your news release or opinion Editorial Policy Opinions published are solely the opinion of the author. YubaNet.com

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Risk Policy Report .................................[This story printer-friendly]
March 6, 2007

WASHINGTON EMERGES AS TEST FOR STATES' PUSH TO BAN FIRE SUPPRESSANT

[Rachel's introduction: If the Washington [state] bill passes, "it would have a big impact" on other states debating similar bills... The industry source says officials are closely following the state efforts. "I am watching all the state bills very closely, every day..."]

By Adam Sarvana

Legislation pending in Washington state to ban a controversial flame- retardant chemical is emerging as a test case for similar legislative efforts pending in several state legislatures around the country, industry and environmental sources say.

The multi-state effort to ban decabrominated diphenyl ether (decaBDE) could be bolstered by a recent EPA decision to tighten its safe exposure level for the chemical, which is the only remaining commercially used substance in a class of chemicals known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). DecaBDE is used in a variety of consumer products, plastics and textiles as a flame retardant.

EPA recently tightened its reference dose (RfD), used to set certain environmental and health regulations, from .01 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg-day) to .007 mg/kg-day in a draft toxicological review released last December. The RfD is the amount that the average person could be exposed to without anticipating adverse health effects. RfDs are used in regulatory determinations to ensure that regulations, such as drinking water standards, are sufficiently protective of human health (Risk Policy Report, Feb. 13, p14).

Supporters of the bills to ban decaBDE argue it poses similar heath risks to other PBDEs, which are already being phased out in Europe and the United States. However, industry opponents point to studies they say indicate decaBDE is safe and argue it should not be thrown out in favor of replacements that are less well understood.

PBDEs as a class include the phased-out penta- and octabromodiphenyl ethers, which industry consented to stop using in the U.S. in 2004 under an agreement with EPA. DecaBDE was not addressed in the agreement and has become a contentious issue as lawmakers, health officials, environmental groups and industry continue to debate its proper regulatory and scientific status. California originally moved to ban decaBDE along with the other common varieties in a 2003 law but stripped the provision before the bill was ultimately signed by then- Gov. Gray Davis (D).

Now Washington, California and Minnesota are among seven states in various stages of considering similar bills to phase out or mandate safer alternatives for decaBDE, with Washington the furthest along.

According to several sources, the Washington state bill appears headed for enactment after sponsors scaled back some of the measure's requirements. The Washington state House passed H.B. 1024 Feb. 16, which would ban decaBDE in mattresses after January 1, 2008, and require the state environment and health departments to review risk assessments and data on the use of commercial alternatives to decaBDE and report to the state legislature by December 15, 2008. Relevant documents are available on InsideEPA.com.

The measure, sponsored by state Rep. Ross Hunter (D), who has sponsored previous versions of the bill, appears headed for enactment. 10 House Republicans joined with 61 Democrats in passing the bill, while key advisers to Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) are endorsing it.

Jay Manning, the head of the state's Department of Ecology, urged the legislature to quickly approve the measure before its April 22 deadline. "The PBDE flame retardant legislation represents a comprehensive and common sense approach to protecting public health and our environment without sacrificing fire safety. It's based on science and thorough study. Delaying this action means the continued buildup of Deca in people, animals and the environment. Let's not wait," Manning wrote in a recent editorial.

A source with the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators (NCEL) says the current version has a better chance of passage than prior versions because sponsors broadened exemptions, phaseout timetables and provisions for expert input on implementation. The bill "has been crafted to eliminate opposition from everyone except the bromine industry," making passage more politically likely, the NCEL source says.

An industry source suggests that the bill may be enacted, but cautions that banning the chemical could have harmful consequences. "This bill is designed to [allow environmental activists to claim a political victory] regardless of the consequences." The source argues that "there are significant economic impacts to the state in banning a product and enforcing that ban," and that the state Department of Ecology "has said it cannot identify an alternative to Deca that is safer."

Many of the state bills include several exemptions from the phaseout, which is scheduled for Jan. 1, 2008, in versions being considered by Montana, Illinois, Minnesota and Washington and for Jan. 1, 2009, in a version being considered by Hawaii. Not all bills would extend the phaseout to the same number or types of products, but all include at least a phaseout in mattresses and all versions require the state to broadly study alternatives.

The exemptions in the Minnesota legislation, which would mandate the most extensive phaseout, include transportation vehicle parts, charitable donations, items with specific military or space program applications, recycled foam carpet cushions and medical devices. An amendment offered to the bill by one Minnesota state lawmaker would create a process to apply for specific exemptions subject to a series of findings by state officials and vows by the petitioner company to phase out PBDEs to the extent practicable.

If the Washington bill passes, "it would have a big impact" on other states debating similar bills, the NCEL source says. "Once California enacted a penta and octa ban [in 2003], several other states followed. Once one state takes a first step it's easier for others to follow."

An environmentalist source agrees, saying, "We'll be getting an indication quickly from Washington" on whether the issue is resonating with state lawmakers. If the bill passes, "it will increase the momentum of all states considering this." The source cautions, however, that "each state is different and you can't predict from one state victory or failure what will happen."

The industry source says officials are closely following the state efforts. "I am watching all the state bills very closely, every day," the source says. The source adds, "It's hard to say what happens if one state passes legislation," arguing that decaBDE is "the most studied flame retardant in history" and has not been shown to cause significant health problems in humans. Signing such a bill into law "would set a bad precedent in substituting an unknown substance for a known substance" -- because many state versions of the bill require industry to use alternatives after the decaBDE phaseout -- "and that's not good public policy," the source says.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Rachel's Precaution Reporter offers news, views and practical examples of the Precautionary Principle, or Foresight Principle, in action. The Precautionary Principle is a modern way of making decisions, to minimize harm. Rachel's Precaution Reporter tries to answer such questions as, Why do we need the precautionary principle? Who is using precaution? Who is opposing precaution?

We often include attacks on the precautionary principle because we believe it is essential for advocates of precaution to know what their adversaries are saying, just as abolitionists in 1830 needed to know the arguments used by slaveholders.

Rachel's Precaution Reporter is published as often as necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the subject.

As you come across stories that illustrate the precautionary principle -- or the need for the precautionary principle -- please Email them to us at rpr@rachel.org.

Editors:
Peter Montague - peter@rachel.org
Tim Montague - tim@rachel.org

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Precaution Reporter send a blank Email to one of these addresses:

Full HTML edition: join-rpr-html@gselist.org
Table of Contents edition: join-rpr-toc@gselist.org

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160
New Brunswick, N.J. 08901
rpr@rachel.org

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::