These chemicals must also have other names that manufacturers use. Personally, I'd have maybe liked an "also known as" for the three you listed. Now I'm lost in scary memories of my carefree but ignorant youth. When I lived for a year in Hawaii, I had a 7'x10' space with no bed so I slept on a futon on the floor. The place was under a garage. It was CRAWLING with roaches. I spread copious amounts of boric acid all around my space and as I slept on the floor, I was inhaling it thoroughly and consistently every night.
We live on the edge and have for quite a while since everything is either polluted or so costly to purchase or to regulate that we have little chance for bigger impact. We can't forget that the US banned DDT and it's still in use around the world, floating back to the U.S. in the water and on winds, no matter what our own 'ethic' is. How in the world could we hope to effectively regulate and enforce environmental laws with so few real people working in the field? I ran into this stumbling block when I was doing a year-long study of toy safety with gifted kids.
@Bolaji, That is an article in itself. P&G has an approach that guarantees acceptance of their products around the world. They call it Glocal, Global/Local. They sell pizza flavored Pringles to France and Germany, but Italy will have nothing to do with that flavor. In the same way, P&G has personal care products and cosmetics marketed in Europe with REACH compliant formulations while the same products sold into non REACH regulated regions has a different list of ingredients. They vary the strength of their Ariel detergent using the Glocal approach because Germany uses a lot of detergent in every wash while France uses less. As you know, each US company that sells into the EU has to comply with REACH so they are gearing up their infrastructure, processes, and modifying formulations to meet the requirements. In the article, I said the US was 10 years behind the EU. Like RoHS, REACH allowances and prohibitions will eventually become mainstream in our industries as well. I think we should be grateful for these mandates as it forces producers who follow the dollar signs only to consider the health and well being of not just their customers, but also the environment in a big way.
You didn't address the international impact of these laws on businesses. You looked at the issue from the "environmental responsibility/moral angle". I've always seen that as a sure-fire way to get people riled up on government "interventionism" and the responses you're getting reveals this. We may disagree with people who think there are too many rules on enterprise commerce but that doesn't undercut their viewpoint.
I wonder if we aren't overlooking the potential impacts of the EU regulations on American companies despite alleged US government's lack of oversight. Consider that REACH, RoHS and WEEE and many other environmental regulations did not originate in the U.S. but every major company based in the US that wants to sell products into EU member states, Korea, Japan and even China have to abide by the dictates of these legislations. They may get a free pass at home but not abroad.
@Gary - The point of the article is that we in the USA are unnecessarily exposed to chemicals known to be hazzardous because we do not have sufficient government enforcement for restrictions for the use of many chemicals found in everday products. Let me refer to something directly taken from the FDA web pages.
Does FDA approve cosmetics before they go on the market?
"FDA's legal authority over cosmetics is different from other products regulated by the agency, such as drugs, biologics, and medical devices. Cosmetic products and ingredients are not subject to FDA premarket approval authority, with the exception of color additives."
In other words, there is no dispassionate review and approval agency for potentially dangerous chemicals used in cosmetic products before they hit the distribution and retail marketplace. The cosmetic industry is virtually self-regulated. The fox is watching the hen house.
The Environmental Working Group, the EPA, and FDA among other trusted organizations conducted a study of over 14,000 personal care products. They found hundreds of varieties of skin and tanning lotions, mascara, nailpolish, and other personal care products that contained suspected carcinogens, mutagens, and reproductive toxins. According to documented results,99% of the products never were publicly assessed for safety. The truth is, prior to this study, no independent agency ever examined these products.
DDT was banned for sale and distribution in America, but production and export was allowed for shipments to 3rd world countries. We knew that it was extremely toxic to human beings so why did we knowingly ship it to human beings overseas. What does that say about our ethics vs. profit motivations.
Please read Exposed as it contains multiple study results as posted by reputable agencies and scientist concerned for the safety of us all. Schapiro is not an alarmist. No more than you would be if you were caught in a burning building and felt strongly compelled to pull the fire alarm.
@Michael, you are correct. I used the word "restricted" in a general sense and not to the letter of the legislation. I will watch for that in the future. Thanks for the correction.
Douglas, I agree that the US is way behind the EU now in terms of advancing environmental regulations. Congress has had the Safe Chemicals Act introduced as a bill several times over since 2005 and none, Republican or Democrat, has even bothered to vote on it.
However, note that SVHC substances are NOT THE SAME as RESTRICTED substances under REACH. Restricted substances are listed in Annex XVII of REACH. SVHCs have only to be disclosed per the conditions described in Article 33. This means that you can still use them in your products but you have to tell your customers they're there if they meet certain thresholds.
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Archived Dialogues
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Euro-Crisis: What It Means for High-Tech Firms Join EBN Editor in Chief Bolaji Ojo and Contributing Editor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday, July 12, at 10:00 a.m. EDT for a Live Chat on high-tech and Europe's economic difficulties.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
While no one really can accurately predict the future, we can take guidance from another Drucker saying which is the best way to predict the future is to create it.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.
To save this item to your list of favorite EBN content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This
