MORE ON "THE DELAY GAME" FROM YESTERDAY

Back in the 70's the U.S. passed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Among it's weaknesses, it "grandfathered" 62,000 chemicals already in use . The TSCA also put the burden of proof on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prove that a chemical was unsafe rather than the burden of proof being on the manufacturer to show that his product was safe. As a result, to date the EPA has only been able to require testing on approximately 300 chemicals out of more than 62,000 known to be in use. This is ridiculous. Furthermore the chemical industry has followed in the footsteps of the asbestos and tobacco industries in defending their products alleged safety. They have all used a series of tactics nicknamed the "Four Dog Defense". It goes like this: " 1. My dog does not bite.
At first the company denies that its' product is harmful. This may include attempts to discredit scientific studies, or authors of studies, that show harm and generate its' own studies designed to show no harm.

2. My dog bites, but it didn't bite you.
Industry concedes that the chemical is potentially harmful, but insists that no one is exposed to it. This argument works best if industry doesn't test or monitor for the chemical- absence of data is often used as a reason to argue that there is no exposure.

3. My dog bit you, but it didn't hurt you.
Industry admits that people or wildlife are exposed to the chemical, but denies that the exposure caused harm. Industry concedes that the chemical is harmful at very high test doses or under unrealistic test conditions, but not at the lower levels or real- world scenarios to which people or wildlife are actually exposed. Or the argument may focus on differences between humans and laboratory animals, alleging that harm such as cancer observed in animal experiments is not relevant to people.

4. My dog bit you, and hurt you, but it wasn't mt fault.
Industry admits the chemical is making people sick, but tries to shift the blame to avoid regulation and liability. Possible culprits are improper use, use under past practices no longer followed (before we knew better), other chemicals, medications, smoking or poor health. "

These tactics are part of "The Delay Game". Politicians have drafted legislation with intentional loopholes. They want to give the impression of protection. The reality is that they want their cake and to eat it. They want to assure the public that they are being protected while in fact they are really protecting the interests of the chemical industry.