New York Times, October 17, 2007

WHAT'S IN THAT STUFF?

[Rachel's introduction: Because it embraces the precautionary principle, "the European Union is gaining the upper hand in regulating the behavior of multinational corporations, and is thus amassing more economic power."]

By Dan Mitchell

If you want to know what's in your food, finding out is easy enough -- just look at the label. Federal law mandates that food producers list ingredients. Not so with makers of cosmetics, and millions of Americans have no idea what they are putting on their skin each day.

That is not the case in Europe, where the European Union has imposed strict limits on the chemicals that manufacturers can use in products ranging from body spray to bug spray.

A result, Mark Schapiro, an investigative journalist, says in his book, "Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and What's at Stake for American Power," is not only that American consumers are more at risk than their European counterparts. Besides that, he says, the European Union is also gaining the upper hand in regulating the behavior of multinational corporations, and is thus amassing more economic power.

American consumers assume "that somebody out there is assessing what it is they put on their bodies," he said this week on San Francisco's public radio station KQED (kqed.org/forum). That, he said, is an "illusion."

The book offers various examples of the kinds of chemicals that are allowed by the United States government, but restricted by the European Union. Much of the book is devoted to cosmetics, since, in that business, the regulatory gulf between Europe and the United States is especially wide.

But there are examples in nearly every manufacturing industry. For example, Europe has restricted the use of phthalates -- compounds, often used in toys, that make plastic softer. But the United States has not, even though there is an "enormous body of evidence" that phthalates cause decreased production of testosterone in young boys, Mr. Schapiro said.

Europe "operates according to the precautionary principle," Mr. Schapiro said in an interview with the Center for Investigative Reporting, (centerforinvestigativereporting.org) where he is the editorial director. In the United States, "regulators wait for final scientific 'proof,' an elusive goal that creates what critics call 'paralysis by analysis.'"

The Economist, in an article citing "Exposed," said last month that in Europe, unlike the United States, "corporate innocence is not assumed."

[snip]

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company