Disclaimer: The views presented in the Newsletter do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Chemicals Agency. All content and links are up to date at the time of publication. Users are informed that any reliance on the accuracy and/or completeness of any content posted by other users on this website is done at their own risk. The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) accepts no liability in respect of any content posted by users.
Editor-in-chief:
Johanna Salomaa-Valkamo
Johanna Salomaa-Valkamo
Editor:
Päivi Jokiniemi
A shock that led to a documentary: "Products on the shelves are not tested for safety"
The Human Experiment is a new American documentary focusing on chemicals in everyday household products and their potential effect on humans. The film includes interviews with ECHA's Executive Director Geert Dancet and Director Jack de Bruijn, which showcase the advances in chemicals legislation in Europe. It will premiere at the International Documentary Film Festival in Amsterdam in November. ECHA Newsletter spoke with Dana Nachman, one of the directors, to find out what inspired the film and what she hopes people will get out of it.
Can you tell me a little about the film? What is it about?
The documentary is about the thousands of chemicals we all use in our everyday products, some of which are in our furniture, our make-up and other cosmetics, and how in America, the majority of these chemicals have never been tested for safety. Meanwhile, there are many diseases and health conditions that are on the rise.
In the film, we are following a group of activists who believe that chemicals are to blame for the rise in health problems and disease.
What gave you the inspiration to make the film?
I was working as a journalist for the American TV news organisation NBC, when I came up with this idea. I was assigned to do a piece about limiting toxic chemicals in the home in 2009 and learnt that products on the shelves in the stores are not tested for safety. I was shocked! As a consumer I was buying these products all the time. Usually, when I'm shocked about something, it turns into my next documentary.
I started working on The Human Experiment in 2010. Since then, I've been doing a lot of research and reaching out to people from all different walks of life.
How did you find the people featured in the documentary?
Slowly over time, I started learning the landscape of who is working on this issue. One person would lead me to another person and that person yet to another. Now, I have around 150 different groups in my database. Some of them are in the film, some are not.
The film has three main characters - people who are affected with some kind of a disease or condition. One has breast cancer; one a brother with autism and one has suffered infertility. We also meet many other people in the course of the film, for example, two business men who are making cleaning products and two women who are campaigning for safer cosmetics. We meet people who are on the frontline of these issues doing their own campaigns, even though they do not necessarily have a disease or condition associated with chemicals - yet.
Why do you think the issues raised in the film are important right now?
The main thing is that it touches us all. I've done other films with important issues such as terrorism and wrongful convictions but not everybody is really impacted – even though the topics are interesting. This film impacts everyone: we all have these products; we buy these products; we all, to some degree, play a part in making sure this goes on in the way it does because we support it with our money. That said, everybody needs to become aware of what is going on so that they can make their own decisions instead of letting advertisers and marketers make the decisions for them. Hopefully, this film will be helpful for people to be better informed.
 |
| Dana Nachman. Image: Dana Nachman. |
What are the ‘take home' messages that you wish to convey through the film?
I hope that people come away feeling empowered to make choices for themselves and their family. We can all make a difference by turning a situation that could be scary into something that is empowering, starting with very small changes in our daily purchasing. The more of us that do it, the more it will help people who maybe cannot afford e.g. greener products or who haven't this message yet.
Another message is that nobody is doing this for us. In America, unlike in Europe, this is not yet done for us by the government or authorities. Until the authorities act, which I hope will happen soon, we have to take matters into our own hands.
You strongly believe that individual people can have an impact?
Yes, not only do I believe it, I can see it happening. In the years that I've been working on this film, things have already advanced. For example, when I go to the drug store, I see that the shelves of non-toxic, non-chemical products are getting bigger with more options. This is directly from customer demand.
We are asking in the film that what if the biggest chemical disaster of our time is not a nuclear meltdown or an oil spill but the small chemical exposures happening hundreds of times a day that we inflict on ourselves. Most people are not looking at it this way. We need to change the way we look at the products we bring into our homes or use on our children and see that changes are possible. Hopefully in America the legislation will follow, but for now, consumer demand is driving the train.
You interviewed ECHA's Executive Director Geert Dancet and Director of Risk Assessment Jack de Bruijn for the film. Why was that?
We wanted to show Europe as an example that the reform of chemicals legislation is possible and that change can be beneficial for all players. In the US, the change in regulation has not happened, even though it has been tried for quite some time. Our Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) dates back to 1976 and we can all agree that a lot has happened since then in the chemicals industry.
When I visited Helsinki, I was overwhelmed by the pride you take in working for safer chemicals, the staff you have and the leadership. You are setting the standard for the world and feel strongly about your work. You know, Americans do not like when they are beaten by other people or they cannot do what others do. That is the case here. We are grateful to the Europeans for paving the way and hope we can follow suit soon.
The latest attempt to reform TSCA, the Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA), was introduced in spring 2013. Do you know what is happening with the reform?
Indeed, the CSIA was introduced by senators Lautenberg and Vitter in May 2013. Unfortunately, soon afterwards, senator Lautenberg died. That was pretty bad for the movement, as he was the biggest champion for reform in the senate and had been an advocate for a long time.
The activists that I have spoken to are encouraged by the bipartisan (democrat and republican) support for the bill. However, they are saying that it still needs strengthening to win the support of the public health community. One of the flaws, according to the activists, is that it diminishes the states' rights. While we have not had federal regulation in the US, we have had a lot of individual states coming out with chemical related bills over the years, e.g. regulating the use of BPA in baby products in the state of California. A lot of activists want to make sure that this new bill does not undercut the states' rights to act. We have to see how the situation develops.
In your opinion, what is needed to advance chemical safety in the world?
My personal opinion is that the more people understand, the more they care. What people don't know about, they don't even think about. So, the wider we can spread the word, the more likely it is that industry will change and do the right thing; and the more likely it is that the government will change and do the right thing. Knowledge is really paramount.
I know that different people have different philosophies on how the situation should change. Personally, I don't really think it matters how the change actually happens as long as children and underprivileged, vulnerable people are protected.
How has making the film changed your own behaviour?
I only buy products which I know do not contain toxic chemicals - from my children's bath products to detergents. Actually, I've cut down on how much I buy. I concentrate on the indoor air quality of my home, which I did not even think about earlier. One scientist in the film talks about your home being a toxic box. This means that when you close your windows and keep everything closed up, all these toxins just build up and get into your airways.
I've also been trying to teach my kids. For example, when they go to school and there is toxic soap, I've told them to just use hot water instead. I try to train them to think about these things, not to get them in trouble.
We don't really touch food in our film, but I've made a big change in food in terms of watching out for pesticides and avoiding canned food. We also filter our water.
Basically, I've made changes that empower me. Just yesterday, my husband asked me to bring beans from the store. I went to the store and they did not have the brand that I know does not use BPA, and only brands that did. I could not buy them. Literally, I could not take them off the shelf. I don't think that one can will kill me or my children; I just do not want to support this company until they make a change.
But I have to say, I'm not a purist at all. I hope that one day we have a more overarching and protective system, so that we would not have to make so many decisions on our own.
 | The Human Experiment
|
Interview by Hanna-Kaisa Torkkeli
Top image: Screen shot from the trailer of 'The Human Experiment'
Background: Reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Modernising the chemicals regulation was one of the priorities of Barack Obama's administration after the 2008 election. According to the former US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) administrator Lisa Jackson, "most Americans have lost confidence in the federal government's ability to adequately assess the huge range of chemicals coming on the market." (usnews.com 22.4.2009)
In 2009, the EPA announced the general principles for the reform of TSCA. It also introduced a new approach to its implementation efforts under the existing TSCA authority, including plans to require companies to provide additional information about the risks of chemicals and increasing public access to such information.
In the US Congress, however, attempts to amend the regulation – driven mainly by senator Frank Lautenberg – were unsuccessful due to the breadth and complexity of the proposed bills. More than four years after the first discussions about TSCA reform began, TSCA's core elements remain the same as when it was enacted in 1976.
The Chemical Safety Act - a way forward?
In May 2013, senators Lautenberg (Dem.) and David Vitter (Rep.), together with a bipartisan group of supporting senators, joined forces to advance the reform of TSCA and introduced a new Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA).
The CSIA embodies significant compromises, and is hence the most promising attempt so far to modernise TSCA.
In June 2013, the CSIA proposal was shadowed by the death of senator Lautenberg. In addition, California senator Barbara Boxer, an influential head of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, signalled that she wanted major changes to the proposed bill, mainly concerning the pre-emption of state law.
Senator Vitter later defended the bill in a Committee hearing on 31 July, saying that the intention of the CSIA is not to eliminate private rights of action under state law, nor to remove the authority of the states to protect the environment or citizens.
The CSIA would amend Title I of TCSA in order to improve the safety of American consumers and ensure that risks from chemical substances are adequately understood and managed. It would also introduce, among other things, a new safety standard that ‘no unreasonable risk of harm to human health or the environment will result from exposure to a chemical substance' under ‘intended conditions of use'.
Further information:
Sources:
Text by Hanna-Kaisa Torkkeli
Sign in to comment and/or rate this article.
Give us direct feedback on our articles. Sign in at the top of the page to comment and rate.
Events
February-May 2020
Biocidal Products Committee:
26 February-1 March
Committee for Risk Assessment:
6-8 March and
12-15 March
Committee for Socio-Economic
Analysis:
12-15 March
Management Board meeting:
19-20 March
Enforcement Forum:
23-27 March (tentative)
Member State Committee:
20-24 April (tentative)
Webinars
Route: .live2