The 131st Annual Meeting (November 15-19, 2003) of APHA

Abstract #70203

Lin Nelson, PhD, Environmental Studies, Evergreen State College, Lab 1, Evergreen State College, Olympia, WA 98505, 360-867-6056, nelsonl@evergreen.edu

In the 2003 session of the Washington State Legislature, proponents of a mercury bill worked hard to make their case to state representatives distracted by a massive budget shortfall, high unemployment and a shaken state economy. Vulnerable to fears about any public discussion that might be perceived as business-unfriendly, legislators were challenged by regional environmental advocates and public health scientists to build precaution and correction into the industrial ecology of the state. The bill focused on product phaseouts, lifecycle stewardship, right-to-know, hospital planning for mercury phaseouts where alternatives exist, and state purchasing systems committed to mercury alternatives. The bill has emerged as the first case in a predicted line of industrial/product sunsetting of Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics -- a project promoted by regional health professionals and environmental NGOs, championed by city officials wanting to shift the costs of environmental damages off weakened municipal budgets, taken up as a major initiative in the Departments of Ecology and Health, and condemned by regional to national industrial and commercial interests. This research report will examine the following: the arguments presented by various economic interests (ex., the Pacific Seafood Processors Association, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers); the information and networks supporting these arguments; the connections between various public health campaigns on mercury (Washington’s in relationship to, for example, Maine’s and the United Nations); and the perspectives of Washington state legislators as they have tried to make sense of the clash of data and argumentation.

Learning Objectives:

• 1.Analyze positions and strategies of those promoting PBT (persistent, bioaccumulative toxics) phaseouts.
• 2.Analyze positions and strategies of those opposing PBT phaseouts.
• 3.Assess how legislators form judgements of Environmental Health risks and protections from hearing testimony and lobbying activity.

Keywords: Environmental Health, Public Health Policy

Presenting author's disclosure statement:
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.