|
|
|
|
|
4264.0: Tuesday, November 9, 2004: 4:30 PM-6:00 PM | |||
Oral | |||
| |||
| Between 80,000-100,000 chemicals are in common use worldwide. No uniform policy for chemical regulation exists. This session uses two case studies one of mercury, the other lead, to illustrate current institutional failure to manage and regulate known hazardous substances. Factors such as sound science versus political bias and corporate influence are highlighted. Moving from specific examples, the session outlines a new proposed policy within the European Union called REACH (Registration,Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals). REACH aims to protect human health and the environment while maintaining the competitiveness of the European industry and enhancing innovation. It gives greater responsibility to industry to manage risks and to provide safety information to be passed down the production chain. An analysis of this proposed new policy will be followed by an analysis of current US policy, highlighting the need for updating and identifying how elements of REACH can be incorporated in the US. How might a program like REACH work at a more local level? The University of California at Berkeley, at the behest of the State Legislature, has developed models for improving the chemical management and regulation in that State. These models will be discussed and analyzed. | |||
| Learning Objectives: Particpants will be able to: oIdentify the public health impacts of EPA’s proposed mercury regulation versus a draft regulation by EPA’s technical staff., and describe the impact of bias and politics in the development of public policy. oArticulate the consequences of institutional failure in the prevention of lead exposure from leaded gasoline, household paint, and lead containing foods and medicines, and identify at least 3 conditions necessary for the elimination of institutional failure in US pediatric lead poisoning prevention policy. o Identify the key elements of the new EU proposal for regulation of toxic chemicals. o Describe the major shortcomings of the US system of chemicals management. o Describe the central elements of a comprehensive chemicals policy initiative in California and how this initiative differs from that of the European Union. oDescribe the central elements of a comprehensive chemicals policy initiative in California and how this initiative differs from that of the European Union. | |||
| Susan Lyon Stone, MS Joy E. Carlson, MPH Robeena M. Aziz John Balbus, MD | |||
| Joseph H. Guth, JD, PhD | |||
| Lead poisoning research and policy: The enduring institutional failure Theodore H. Tsoukalas, PhD, Amy G. Cantor, MHS | |||
Corporate influence on public health: Public health implications of EPA’s proposed lax mercury standard for power plants ![[ Recorded presentation ]](/static/img/filetypes/16x16/wrf.gif){kind=small} Lynn Goldman, MD, MPH | |||
| Reform of Toxic Chemicals Regulation: Progress on Reform in Europe (REACH) Robert H. Donkers | |||
| Reform of Toxic Chemicals Regulation: The Current State of Affairs Joel Tickner, ScD | |||
| Toward a Comprehensive Approach to Chemicals Policy: Developments in California Michael P. Wilson, PhD, MPH | |||
| See individual abstracts for presenting author's disclosure statement and author's information. | |||
| Organized by: | Environment | ||
| Endorsed by: | Occupational Health and Safety | ||
| CE Credits: | CME, Health Education (CHES), Nursing | ||