Two regulatory case studies reveal the best way to implement Washington’s new toxic chemical law
Key Findings
- The Legislature imposed new rules to ban “chemicals of concern” that benefit consumers, but assessing the true level of risk to health is not always straightforward.
- Banning certain compounds sometimes leads to banned products being replaced with alternatives that are more toxic.
- The Legislature gave the Department of Ecology sweeping power to ban products, but the Department itself is subject to lobbying pressure from activists and special interests.
- Environmentalists pushed for banning an important flame retardant, with the result that the ban increased, rather than reduced, risk to the public.
- Environmentalists want Washington state to ban substances based on policy decisions made by European regulators, without reviewing the underlying science.
- Instead, Washington officials should set rules based on science and the true risk to the public, with proper oversight by the people’s elected representatives.
Newspaper headlines routinely warn of chemicals that may be harming our health. Some stories claim chemicals in the environment are contributing in the declining population of Southern Resident orca in Puget Sound. To address these concerns, the Legislature passed new regulation on “chemicals of concern,” giving the Department of Ecology broad new authority to restrict or even ban chemicals they determine may have health impacts, despite the benefits these products provide to the public.
Some activists celebrated its passage, calling it the “nation’s strongest policy for regulating toxic chemicals in consumer products.” However, implementing the legislation, SB 5135, could prove challenging.
Despite a patina of scientific analysis, regulating so-called “chemicals of concern” is not always straightforward. Determining the true level of risk to human health can be difficult. Often there is little information (especially about new compounds) for regulators to use when imposing new restrictions. Even when there is information, regulators must also determine whether banning certain compounds will make public risks worse when the banned products are replaced with alternatives that are more toxic.
We have witnessed these tradeoffs here in Washington state, and past efforts to ban certain supposedly toxic flame-retardants led manufacturers to substitute chemicals rated as even more toxic. How the Department of Ecology chooses to implement the new legislation will make all the difference in how effective the new law is in truly protecting the public.
Examining two recent case studies provides guidance on how the department can manage chemicals of concern without inadvertently making the situation worse and to ensure that proven science takes priority over activist politics in these determinations.
