71
permeability to toxicants increase the urgency for better public health protections.
There are no analogues to Harry Potter cloaks against toxicants or for preventing
developmental vulnerability. Vaccines and antibiotics, two public health tools that
helped eliminate infectious diseases, won’t prevent or treat them.
6 Institutional Interventions
Two institutional interventions are critical for protecting the public: one broadly
legal, the other scientific. Administrative health laws must primordially prevent
risks from toxic exposures, “cleaning up” toxicants as public health officials once
cleaned up streets, sewage, water, and the air. Premarket testing and approval laws
with routine toxicity testing and agency approval are needed for all created chemical products that expose the public (Cranor 2011, 2017a).
First, the toxicity of chemical products must be understood before they enter
commerce, exposing the public. The 1976 Toxic substances Control Act failed on
this dimension because substances were permitted into commerce with little or no
toxicity data. Second, once products in commerce are revealed as toxic, agencies
must more quickly identify and reduce risks. Administrative agencies have been
quite slow to remove toxic products from commerce. Premarket laws address the
first issue, while both premarket and postmarket laws must more quickly reduce the
risks of toxic products once they have been identified.
Second, science has an important role in assisting the identification of toxicants.
How much science should be required to support a claim that a proposed new substance will likely not pose risks to the public? Once a product is in commerce, how
much science under a law should be needed to support the reduction of risks or the
removal of the product from commerce. I largely focus on this latter issue because
toxic products have been so difficult to remove from commerce. For example, under
the 1976 TSCA, the U.S. EPA was not permitted to remove all uses of asbestos from
commerce despite 45,000 pages of scientific and legal support and a decade of effort;
a court precluded this action (Corrosion Proof fittings v. Environmental Protection
Agency 1991). If the EPA cannot remove one of the most toxic substances from commerce, there is little hope for removing others. In addition, the EPA has had in its
queue for regulation four known or probable carcinogens (along with several other
substances) for one or more decades with numerous fits and starts along the way, e.g.,
trichloroethylene, dioxin, perchloroethylene, and formaldehyde (GAO 2008).
7 Some Scientific Policies and Research That Assist Quicker
Assessments of Toxicants
Some scientific procedures can more rapidly identify toxicants and, thus, better
protect the public. Administrative agencies could make greater use of well-founded
scientific defaults or presumptions to assist in their tasks. Typically such defaults are
Using Science and Law to Promote Humans’ Biological Integrity
permeability to toxicants increase the urgency for better public health protections.
There are no analogues to Harry Potter cloaks against toxicants or for preventing
developmental vulnerability. Vaccines and antibiotics, two public health tools that
helped eliminate infectious diseases, won’t prevent or treat them.
6 Institutional Interventions
Two institutional interventions are critical for protecting the public: one broadly
legal, the other scientific. Administrative health laws must primordially prevent
risks from toxic exposures, “cleaning up” toxicants as public health officials once
cleaned up streets, sewage, water, and the air. Premarket testing and approval laws
with routine toxicity testing and agency approval are needed for all created chemical products that expose the public (Cranor 2011, 2017a).
First, the toxicity of chemical products must be understood before they enter
commerce, exposing the public. The 1976 Toxic substances Control Act failed on
this dimension because substances were permitted into commerce with little or no
toxicity data. Second, once products in commerce are revealed as toxic, agencies
must more quickly identify and reduce risks. Administrative agencies have been
quite slow to remove toxic products from commerce. Premarket laws address the
first issue, while both premarket and postmarket laws must more quickly reduce the
risks of toxic products once they have been identified.
Second, science has an important role in assisting the identification of toxicants.
How much science should be required to support a claim that a proposed new substance will likely not pose risks to the public? Once a product is in commerce, how
much science under a law should be needed to support the reduction of risks or the
removal of the product from commerce. I largely focus on this latter issue because
toxic products have been so difficult to remove from commerce. For example, under
the 1976 TSCA, the U.S. EPA was not permitted to remove all uses of asbestos from
commerce despite 45,000 pages of scientific and legal support and a decade of effort;
a court precluded this action (Corrosion Proof fittings v. Environmental Protection
Agency 1991). If the EPA cannot remove one of the most toxic substances from commerce, there is little hope for removing others. In addition, the EPA has had in its
queue for regulation four known or probable carcinogens (along with several other
substances) for one or more decades with numerous fits and starts along the way, e.g.,
trichloroethylene, dioxin, perchloroethylene, and formaldehyde (GAO 2008).
7 Some Scientific Policies and Research That Assist Quicker
Assessments of Toxicants
Some scientific procedures can more rapidly identify toxicants and, thus, better
protect the public. Administrative agencies could make greater use of well-founded
scientific defaults or presumptions to assist in their tasks. Typically such defaults are
Using Science and Law to Promote Humans’ Biological Integrity