User:Matranga415/Sandbox

The California Green Chemistry Initiative is a six part initiative to reduce public and environmental exposure to toxins through improved knowledge and regulation of chemicals; two parts became statute in 2008. The other four parts were not passed, but are still on the agenda of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control green ribbon science panel discussions. The two parts of the California Green Chemistry Initiative that were passed are known as AB 1879 (Chapter 559, Statutes of 2008): Hazardous Materials and Toxic Substances Evaluation and Regulation and SB 509 (Chapter 560, Statutes of 2008): Toxic Information Clearinghouse. Implementation of CGCI has been delayed indefinitely beyond the January 1, 2011.

What is green chemistry?
Green chemistry is the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use and generation of hazardous substances. Green chemistry is based upon twelve principles, identified in “Green Chemistry: Theory and Practice” and adopted by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It is an innovative technology which encourages the design of safer chemicals and products and minimizes the impact of wastes through increased energy efficiency, the design of chemical products that degrade after use and the use of renewable resources (instead of non-renewable fossil fuel such as petroleum, gas and coal). Created under the United States Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) promotes the use of chemistry for pollution prevention through voluntary, non-regulatory partnerships with academia, industry, other government agencies, and non-government organizations. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promotes green chemistry as overseen by the OPPT. The California Green Chemistry Initiative (CGCI) marks the biggest leap forward in California chemicals policy in nearly two decades and advances many of the policy reforms proposed federally. CGCI moves beyond voluntary partnerships and voluntary information disclosure to require industry reporting and public disclosure.

Overview
Man-made chemicals are all around us and provide many benefits. Yet many of the chemicals produced are inadequately tested before their release into the environment and are potentially harmful to humans and all living things. Despite alarming concern raised by the recognition that chemicals accumulate in the bodies of wildlife and people, damage DNA, create cancer and reproductive problems, alter hormone systems, and actually permanently change the composition of our Earth’s atmosphere; more and more chemicals are produced and consumed every day. Despite public concern for human health and a general the knowledge that Earth’s capacity to absorb toxic wastes is limited; the government and industry has been slow to lead reform. The pace of industrial production outstrips the effectiveness of current environmental law. The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s most important law to regulate the production, use and disposal of chemicals is the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA). Over the years, TSCA has fallen behind the industry it is supposed to regulate and is an inadequate tool for providing the protection against today’s chemical risks. Green chemistry represents a major paradigm shift in industrial manufacturing as it is a proactive “cradle-to-cradle” approach that focuses environmental protection at the design stage of production processes. The traditional approach by the United States government has too-often been reactive, with action taken once damage has already occurred.

In 2008, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed two joined bills, AB 1879 and SB 507, which created California’s Green Chemistry Initiative (CGCI). AB 1879 increases regulatory authority over chemicals in consumer products. The law established an advisory panel of scientists, known as the green ribbon science panel, to guide research in chemical policy, create regulations for assessing alternatives, and set up an internet database of research on toxins. SB 509 was designed to ensure that information regarding the hazard traits, toxicological and environmental endpoints, and other vital data is available to the public, to businesses, and to regulators in a Toxics Information Clearinghouse. This legislation marks the biggest leap forward in California chemicals policy in nearly two decades and is intended to improve the health and safety of all Californians by providing the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) with the authority to control toxic substances in consumer products.

The bills were scheduled to go into regulatory affect January 1, 2011 with the adoption of the Green Chemistry Initiative. California has postponed the initiative, indefinitely, due to concerns raised by stakeholders and more specifically, controversial last minute changes in the final draft. The final or third draft contains substantial revisions, including scaled back manufacturer and retailer compliance requirements that were not well-received by the environmental community. Assemblyman Mike Feur and several authors of AB 1879, assert that last minute changes by the California DTSC have drastically weakened the Green Chemistry Initiative and limited its scope. The most concerning changes require the state to prove that a chemical is harmful before being regulated, mirroring what is currently required at the Federal level by TSCA. The original draft advocated a precautionary principle, or “cradle-to-cradle” approach. Environmentalists fear that CGCI will not remove chemicals off the shelves, but instead will create “paralysis by analysis” as companies litigate against the DTSC over unfavorable decisions. As discrepancies among various stakeholders have stalled a course of action, we have yet to determine how effective these laws will actually be.

Toxic chemicals in our environment
Chemicals bring significant benefits to society, through their use in healthcare, cosmetics, electronics, plastics, clothing, cleaning products, toys, furniture, food production, building materials, and so on. During their manufacture and use, chemicals are released into the environment. They can travel vast distances by air or water and are absorbed by wildlife and humans through their skin or ingested in food and water. Typical household cleaners such as Pledge, Clorox, and Lysol, for example, contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and many pesticides are carcinogenic (cancer causing) and harmful to the brain, internal organs, respiratory and immune systems. The mass packaging of food is an important barrier against microbiological contamination. However, the leaching of potentially accumulatively toxic compounds (such as vinyl chloride, phthalates, and dioxins) from packaging material into foods poses great hazard to human health. In processed foods, food additives act as preservatives and processing aids and replace the color and nutrients lost during processing. There are over 14,000 man-made chemicals added to our American food supply today. Artificial coloring is a suspected toxic and carcinogen, and is linked to learning disorders, behavioral disorders and ADHD in children; BHT & BHA, two closely related preservatives that prevent oxidation in food, are listed as carcinogenic by the State of California and the United Nations World Health Organization; meat preservatives (sodium nitrite and sodium nitrate) are suspected to cause stomach cancer. These are just a few of the thousands of examples.

Fetuses, infants and young children are especially sensitive to toxins because their bodies are still developing. A child born in America today will grow up exposed to more chemicals than a child from any other generation in our history. A 2005 study found 287 different chemicals in the cord blood of 10 newborn babies – chemicals from pesticides, fast food packaging, coal and gasoline emissions, and trash incineration. Three types of chemicals in use are of particular concern: Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) which break down slowly or not at all and accumulate in the bodies of wildlife and people, endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) which interfere with the hormone systems of animals and people, and chemicals which cause cancer, reproductive problems, or damage DNA. Persistent organo chlorine pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), Bisphenol A and DDT are endocrine disrupters; vinyl chloride, arsenic, benzene and hundreds of other chemicals are capable of causing cancers; heavy metals such as mercury and lead are neuro-toxins that accumulate in tissues and cause brain and nervous system damage. All of these chemicals have been found in consumer products and in our contemporary environment, some of which have been banned for decades.

Lack of adequate tools for regulation
Over 4 billion pounds of toxic chemicals are released by industry into the nation's environment each year, including 72 million pounds of recognized carcinogens. Toxic chemicals in our environment threaten our land, water, air and ultimately all living things on Earth, including ourselves. The world’s chemical industries produce and release thousands of chemical compounds every year, in most cases with no or very little testing and understanding of their impacts on people and the environment. Most chemicals on the market and in use everyday have never been adequately tested for the human and environmental safety. In the past, government and industry have too-often responded reactively: waiting until damage has occurred before taking action. Superfund sites and the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico highlight the disastrous economic and environmental consequences of this strategy. The public pays the externalized costs (a negative cost that is not transmitted through price) of the use of hazardous substances and our lack of reliable information regarding the most chemicals in commerce.

Oversight of the chemical industry is based on the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Under the Act, the US Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to require reporting, record-keeping, testing requirements and restrictions on chemicals substances or mixtures. Certain substances are generally excluded from TSCA, including food, drugs, cosmetics and pesticides. [The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (1947) regulates pesticides and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (1938) regulates food, drugs and cosmetics]. In the intervening 35 years since the passage of TCSA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has only required safety testing of 200 chemicals. The original law explicitly exempted 60,000 chemicals from any testing under a "grandfather clause;" Congress later added 20,000 more chemicals to that list. Currently, manufacturers aren’t required to develop data on toxicity and exposure or demonstrate to the EPA that chemicals meet risk-based safety standards. As for new chemicals, companies have no legal obligation to develop new information. Under this structure, the burden of proof falls on the EPA and regulation is time-consuming and cumbersome. According to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, the Toxic Substances Control Act has proven “an inadequate tool for providing protection against chemicals risks.” Since 1976, the EPA has issued regulations to control only five from a total of almost 80,000 existing chemicals.

In 2007, US Senators Barbara Boxer and Frank R. Lautenberg asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a comparison of TSCA with the European Union’s REACH (Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals) program. The report highlights that while TSCA generally requires the EPA to demonstrate chemical will cause unreasonable risks, REACH requires chemical companies to ensure no adverse chemical affects. Also, REACH requires greater public disclosure while EPA has limited ability to share data collected under TSCA. The GAO made recommendations to shift more burden on chemical companies for demonstrating chemical safety, strengthen TSCA’s ability to obtain additional chemical information from the chemical industry and enhance the public understanding of risks of chemicals which they may be exposed to. Following the report, Senator Frank Lautenberg introduced The Safe Chemicals Act of 2010 (S 3209) to overhaul TSCA, but congress failed to pass the legislation. States lead on toxic chemical reform while congress lags behind: 18 states have passed 71 chemical safety laws in the last eight years by an overwhelming, bipartisan margin, and the policy actions taken by the states advance many of the same chemical policy reforms proposed in Congress.

Traditional methods of dealing with wastes
Society historically managed its industrial and municipal wastes by disposal or incineration. Chemical regulation occurs only after a product is identified as hazardous. This problem-specific approach has led to the release of thousands of potentially harmful chemicals in our environment. Chemical regulation is a continuous game of catch up, in which banned chemicals are replaced with new chemicals that may be just as or more toxic. Many environmental laws are still based on the industrial production model of cradle-to-grave. The term “cradle-to-grave” is used to describe and assess the life-cycle of products, from raw material extraction through materials processing, manufacture, distribution, use and disposal. This traditional approach to chemicals management has serious environmental drawbacks because it does not consider what happens to a product after it is disposed of. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, exemplifies a cradle-to-grave management approach of hazardous waste. RCRA has been largely ineffective because its emphasis is on dealing with waste after it has been created; meanwhile emphasis on waste reduction is minimal. Waste does not disappear, it is simply transported elsewhere. Costly and burdensome hazardous waste disposal in the US has encouraged the exportation of hazardous waste to poor counties and developing nations willing to accept the waste for a fee.

By instead employing a cradle-to-cradle approach, the Green Chemistry initiative represents a major paradigm shift in environmental policy and provides a proactive solution to toxic waste. The Earth’s capacity to accept toxic waste is practically nonexistent. The disposal of hazardous wastes is not the root problem but rather, the root symptom. The critical issue is the creation of toxic wastes. Requiring manufacturers to consider chemical exposure during manufacturing, throughout product use and after disposal, encourages the production of safer products.

Consumption and it wastes
By the time we find a product on a market shelf, 90% of the resources used to create that product are already waste. This accounts for about 136 pounds of resources a week consumed by the average American and 2,000 pounds of waste support that consumption. As the population grows and the economy expands more and more products will be created, consumed, and disposed of. Many negative externalities are related to the environmental consequences of production and use, including air pollution, anthropogenic climate change and water pollution. Under the current cycle of production, toxic chemical byproducts will continue to be produced and unleashed on our environment. If we continue to create toxic wastes we will ultimately create a world that is unsuitable for human life.

Transparency issues
One of the biggest failures in market transactions is the imbalance of information that is provided to consumer via producer. “Information asymmetry” is an economic concept that is used to explain this failure: it deals with the study of decisions in transactions where one party has more or better information than the other. Due to a lack of information transparency, the public may lack vital information about the health and safety of products found on super market shelves. This lack of information may have lead to a reversed purchasing decision. Yet without such labeling; consumers must make assumptions based on things like price or expertise. For example, one apple juice brand may be assumed healthier because it cost more and because the brand is advertised as “healthy” and “recommended by mothers.” Further, it may be assumed that the product is safe for consumption if it is sitting on a grocery store shelf and probably would not be approved by the government if it contained harmful chemicals. Assumptions such as these could inform a typical purchasing decision, despite their inaccuracy. Perhaps given more information, the same brand of apple juice would be less desirable if information on unhealthy preservatives, additives or pesticide residues was easily obtained. To make market transactions more efficient the government could force more accurate labeling about products, laws could require companies to be more transparent, and the government could require that advertising be less persuasive and more informative. The Green Chemistry Initiative of California would address transparency issues by creating a public chemical inventory and requiring more stringent regulation of chemicals that may be toxic. The CGCI Draft Report suggests a green labelling system to identify consumer products with ingredients harmful to human health and the environment.

Stakeholder involvement
The United States is the world leader in chemicals manufacturing. As a multibillion dollar industry, the chemical industry has a leading role in the US economy and because of this, a high level of influence in federal decision-making. Central to the modern world economy, it converts raw materials (oil, natural gas, air, water, metals, and minerals) into more than 70,000 different products. The chemical industry-- producers of chemicals, household cleansers, plastics, rubber, paints and explosives, keeps a watchful eye on issues including environmental and health policy, taxes and trade. The industry is often the target of environmental groups, which charge that chemicals and chemical waste are polluting the air and water supply. And like most industries with pollution problems, chemical manufacturers oppose meddlesome government regulations that make it more difficult and expensive for them to do business. So do most Republicans, which is why this industry gives nearly three-fourths of its campaign contributions to the GOP. In addition to campaign contributions to elected officials and candidates, companies, labor unions, and other organizations spend billions of dollars each year to lobby Congress and federal agencies. Some special interests retain lobbying firms, many of them located along Washington's legendary K Street; others have lobbyists working in-house.

According to website Opensecrets, the total number of clients lobbying for the chemical industry in 2010 was 143, which is the highest number in history. The first group on this list, American Chemistry Council spent $8,130,000 lobbying last year and Crop America, which comes second, spent $2,291,859 lobbying last year, FMC Corp spent $1,230,000 and Koch Industries spent $8,070,000. The Chemical Industry wants limited testing of chemicals, more lengthy and costly studies of chemicals already proven to be dangerous, and an assumption that we are only exposed to one chemical at a time, and from one source at a time.

According to Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a broad coalition of groups, including major environmental organizations like the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund, health organizations like the Learning Disabilities Association, Breast Cancer Fund, and the Autism Society, health professionals and providers like the American Nurses Association, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the Mt. Sinai Children's Environmental Health Center, and concerned parents groups like MomsRising: there is growing national momentum and pressure to change the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), our federal system for overseeing chemical safety, which has not been updated in thirty-five years. Polling data indicates overwhelming support for chemical regulation nationwide. According to polling data conducted by the Mellman Group, 84% say that "tightening controls" on chemical regulation is important, with 50% of those calling it "very important.” Public Health Advocates want public disclosure of safety information for all chemicals in use, prompt action to phase out or reduce the most dangerous chemicals, deciding safety based on real world exposure to all sources of toxic chemicals.

Development of the California Green Chemistry Initiative
In 2008, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed two state bills authorizing the state to identify toxic chemicals in industry and consumer products and analyze alternatives. AB 1879, written by Assemblyman Mike Feur, a Los Angeles Democrat, requires the state Department of Toxic Substances Control to assess chemicals and prioritize the most toxic for possible restrictions or bans. The environmental policy council, made up of heads of all state environmental protection agency boards and departments will oversee the program. SB 509, by Senator Joe Simitian, a Palo Alto Democrat, creates an online toxics information clearinghouse with information about the hazards of thousands of chemicals used in California. These bills are intended to put an end to chemical-by-chemical bans and remove harmful products at the design stage. The regulations are expected to motivate manufacturers of consumer products containing chemicals of concern to seek safer alternatives.

Supporters of the bill include the California Association of Professional Scientists, the Chemical Industry Council of California, DuPont, BIOCOM, Grocery Manufacturers Association, the Breast Cancer Fund, Catholic Healthcare West, in additional to a broad array of environmental groups such as the Coalition for Clean Air, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council. The American Electronics Associations (AEA) and Ford spoke in opposition to the bill, each requesting an exemption from its provisions. Also opposing were environmental justice advocates who indicated the bill did not go far enough. Meanwhile large trade associations such as Consumer Specialty Products Association, Western States Petroleum Association, American Chemistry Council, CA Manufacturers and Technology Association, and CA Chamber of Commerce officially withdrew opposition to the measures.

Due to outdated and inefficient or otherwise voluntary chemical regulation at the Federal level, the State of California has decided to take regulation into its own hands and develop stricter, environmentally-informed methodologies for dealing with the production of toxic wastes. California's economy is the largest of any state in the US, and is the eighth largest economy in the world. This position gives California an advantage when it comes to environmental standards: the impact of chemical regulation statewide can have a broader impact nationwide if manufacturers desire to stay competitive in California’s market. The Green Chemistry Initiative forces statewide industries to comply with greener standards of production, which may spark innovation on a wider basis.

The Green Chemistry initiative aims to regulate the creation and use of materials hazardous to human health and the environment by encouraging innovative design and manufacturing, and ultimately safer consumer product alternatives. To develop the regulatory framework, DTSC held a number of stakeholder and public workshops and invited direct public participation in the drafting of regulations on a wiki website. DTSC reportedly received over 57,000 comments and over 800 regulatory suggestions. Regulatory suggestions included industry assesments of risk and safety, alternative chemicals and life-cyle assessments and mandatory industry reporting, full public discloure of substances contained in products, a green labelling program that would inform consumers of the potential health and environmental impacts of the chemicals contained in products and a mandated surcharge on chemicals and products to support a fund to address environmental problems. In December 2008, DTSC announced six policy recommendations for the Green Chemistry Initiative. In brief, those recommendations are:
 * 1) 	expand pollution prevention
 * 2) 	develop green chemistry workforce education and training, research and development, technology transfer
 * 3) 	online product ingredient network
 * 4) 	online toxics clearing house
 * 5) 	accelerate the quest for safer products
 * 6) 	move toward cradle to cradle economy

Two of the six recommendations from this report were adopted: AB 1879 requires the DTSC to implement regulations to identify and prioritize chemicals of concern, evaluate alternatives, and specify regulatory responses where chemicals are found in products. SB 509 requires an online, public toxics information clearinghouse that includes science-based information on the toxicity and hazard traits of chemicals used in daily life. Essentially the recommended policy methods include authority tools that would regulate the approval on new chemicals in a more cautious manner as well as mandate the decimation of information, as provided by manufacturers to the public; innovation would be encouraged under this paradigm to replace harmful chemicals with greener alternatives and the California government would fund programs to help industries produce greener chemicals. Secondly, capacity or learning tools would be provided to the public in the form of the online database, giving the tools so that they have better ability to make market decisions that reflect their interests.

Criticism of CGCI
Environmentalists say the amended regulations won't remove toxic products from the shelves and will create "paralysis by analysis," as industries can litigate against DTSC over unfavorable department decisions. Activists say California was poised to lead the way on toxics regulation but now is faced with potentially one of the weakest chemical-regulatory mechanisms in the nation. According to CHANGE (Californians for a Healthy & Green Economy), the revised regulation is a betrayal of the Green Chemistry promise and ignores two years of public input, while caving to backroom industry lobbying. Furthermore, it is a betrayal to public interest groups, businesses, and residents of California and legislators who supported the intent of this bill, to protect Californians and spur a healthy, innovative green economy. Environmentalists say the toxics department gutted the initiative at the behest of the chemical industry, and then put out the changes for public comment during a 15-day period just before Thanksgiving. This was a violation of the law requiring a 45-day public comment period when a substantial reworking of state regulations is proposed.

Implementation of CGCI has been delayed indefinitely beyond the January 1, 2011 deadline due to issues that arose after public review of the third draft. The third draft, which was made public December 2010, contains substantial revisions, including scaled back manufacturer and retailer compliance requirements that were not well-received by the environmental community. DTSCs newest draft has made the following changes:
 * All references of nanotechnology are excluded (nano referring to materials with dimensions of 1,000 nanometers or smaller); this change is significant because it would have been considered the most significant attempt to regulate nanomaterials based on environmental or health impacts.
 * The new draft redefines “responsible entities,” which originally referred to the entire business chain of consumer products distribution, including manufacturers, brand name owners, importers, distributors,  and retailers, “responsible entities is now limited to manufacturers and retailers.
 * DTSC prioritizes Children’s products, personal care products and household products until 2016, after that point all consumer products.
 * The new proposed regulations also eliminate the requirement that the DTSC develop a list of chemicals of consideration and products under consideration. This constitutes a major step back
 * New timeline for implementation of regulations

New guidelines for chemical management
The case for green chemistry is strong: everyday the US produces or imports 74 billion pounds of industrial chemicals for use in products and industrial processes—not including pesticides, fuels, pharmaceuticals, or food products. The environmental community, medical and public health industries, chemicals producers and many states agree the current system of chemical management is not workable. The following guidelines were outlined by EPA Administer, Lisa Jackson in 2009. These guidelines are not mandated:
 * All chemicals need to be reviewed against safety standards that are based solely on considerations of risk – not economics or other factors. Standards must be set at levels that are protective of human health and the environment.
 * Safety standards should not be applied without adequate information, and responsibility for providing that information should rest on industry. Manufacturers must develop and submit the hazard, use, and exposure data demonstrating that new and existing chemicals are safe. If industry doesn’t provide the information, EPA should have the tools to quickly and efficiently require testing, without the delays and procedural obstacles currently in place.
 * Both EPA and industry must include special consideration for exposures and effects on groups with higher vulnerabilities – particularly children. Children ingest chemicals at a higher ratio to their body weight than adults, and are more susceptible to long-term damage and developmental problems.
 * When chemicals fall short of the safety standard, EPA must have clear authority to take action. In all cases, EPA and chemical producers must act on priority chemicals in a timely manner, with firm deadlines to maintain accountability. This will not only assure prompt protection of health and the environment, but provide business with the certainly that it needs for planning and investment.
 * Innovation must be encouraged in green chemistry, and support research, education, recognition, and other strategies that will lead us down the road to safer and more sustainable chemicals and processes. All of this must happen with the utmost transparency and concern for the public’s right to know.
 * EPA’s safety assessments need to be properly resourced, with industry contributing its fair share of the costs of implementing new requirements.

If economic growth is founded on an ever-increasing reliance on chemicals, toxins, poisons, and energy by-products, then we will choke on the growth that is supposed to save us. The continued production of wastes and ever growing consumption of raw materials is fuel for our economy and way of life. Yet, the trend is also dangerous. The creation of toxic wastes is a critical issue that requires fundamental changes to our production cycle. Sustainable development entails an entire greening of industry that ceases to produce toxic wastes. The traditional approach to chemical management by the United States government has been response-oriented; with action being taken after damage has already occurred. Under the current structure, the burden of proof falls upon the Environmental Protection Agency and little, if any, responsibility lies upon manufacturers. California’s Green Initiative aims to change current methods by utilizing a precautionary approach to the management of chemical production, increasing regulatory control and taking a national lead in doing so, but delays and opposition to the initiative expose the barriers we face in regulating industry.

What happened to the California Green Chemistry Initiative? Where is it now? Up to date information on the topic is currently scarce, if available at all.