Ideal Chemical Policy

I remember sitting in class last Thursday reviewing the Louisville Charter Background papers and being amazed that it is 2015, yet we are still allowing chemicals that could harm us to be used in our everyday hygiene products. My group had very similar ideas on the elements of an ideal chemical policy and those included in the reform measures proposed by the Louisville Charter work group. Below are the elements of what I believe to be an ideal chemical policy.

1. Give the public workers the right to know and participate: I think this is a huge issue. I have a bachelors degree in nursing, yet until taking this course I was very ignorant to my daily exposures to known carcinogens and toxic chemicals. There is a saying, "What you don't know, can't hurt you." I completely disagree. We have been warned time and time again with books such as Silent Spring, Generations at Risk, and Our stolen Future, yet we have not had a change in policy for more than forty years. Furthermore, the idea of a trade secret needs to be addressed. A fragrance can have anything potentially toxic in it and the producer does not have to disclose the ingredients because they have a patent to it. By protecting a company's right to trade secret, the public workers and consumer are not yielded the right to know. Finally, many workers are exposed to known carcinogens on a daily basis and are unaware of the potential hazard. This closely relates to social determinants of health and is a form of social injustice. 
2. Require comprehensive safety data for all chemicals: As of now, it is the burden of the EPA to demonstrate a chemical's safety. This is backwards. We need a chemical policy in the United States that is similar to the REACH model in the UK. It is unethical to be producing personal care products for the masses without demonstrating their safety. We have seen a dramatic increase in the incidence of breast cancer in the United States and many experts in the field believe it has to do with the utilization of chemicals that are estrogen disruptors. 
3. Take immediate action to protect communities and workers: For a long time, Johnson & Johnson, utilized formaldehyde in their baby shampoo. While it is unclear why the company was utilizing the formaldehyde, but it was likely because formaldehyde is an excellent preservative. A group of nurses took action and refused to put the Johnson & Johnson products in the baskets for patients to take home with them until the company removed the known carcinogens form their products. Almost immediately, the company responded by removing the chemicals. While we don't know if formaldehyde will cause cancer in a baby, the real question is why is there a known carcinogen in shampoo? Furthermore, something to consider is that all exposure is cumulative. 
4. Require safer substitutes and solutions: Just as Johnson & Johnson responded rather quickly as they saw their products sales' drastically decline, as consumers we have the ability to put pressure on these other companies to remove harmful chemicals from their products. An ideal chemical policy would require the most safe products available to be utilized. This would tie into the comprehensive safety data and immediate action to protect all consumers. While it may be cost effective for companies to be using toxic, preservative-laden products, it is unethical to continue to expose consumers to these chemicals. 

We should follow the UK lead and develop a program similar to REACH. Burden of proof should not rest of the EPA for demonstrating harmful effects of chemicals. Furthermore, companies should be required to use safe chemicals in their products and take immediate action to remove known carcinogens and harmful substances from personal care products. After all, how sad is it that a human's first exposure to harmful chemicals is now in utero?