Kay
I agree that we are overwhelmed by great amounts of unnecessary
chemicals. But I do not want the Danish EPA, or any other authority, to
tell me what THEY consider unnecessary. Please let me decide for myself,
but give me the choice. For example, I would buy unperfumed toiletries
(except for perfume, after-shave and such-like, of course, which are
primarily designed to "pong good"), when possible. But the crunch comes
that unperfumed articles are often more expensive than perfumed ones,
presumably because they are considered a niche market. Why is bleached
white flour cheaper than wholemeal (and their corresponding breads)? Why
is tasteless white sugar cheaper than unrefined sugar, with a good
flavour? And where do we draw the line? If you wish to legislate, make
it that it be illegal to sell unperfumed, unrefined goods at a higher
price than the corresponding perfumed or refined ones. I feel that if
they were offered more freely, the demand would rise (cf. so-called
"organic" foods that sell well, despite a higher price, compared to
E-xxx laden ones which one can hardly term 'inorganic', unless it's a
packet of salt or a bottle of mineral water). I recently tried to buy a
half-necessary cosmetic, a roll-on anti-perspirant, without an
unnecessary perfume: I tried the four largest supermarket chains on the
island and three pharmacies. Not one had a single bottle of the stuff.
So, if perfumed socks take off, I can foresee unperfumed ones may become
unavailable. In the case of socks, this wouldn't matter much: mine
become perfumed after a single day! :-(
Brian
Kay Nimmo wrote:
>
> Dear Charles
>
> Of course, the principle can be taken to various extremes depending on
> the situation but in general it is fairly well established.
>
> Watch out now for a new principle; the unnecessariness principle. See
> below!
>
> Kay
>
> Unnecessary chemicals
> Editorial by Danish EPA Director General Steen Gade in the Danish EPA
> magazine MiljøDanmark, July 2001
>
> Perfumed socks. Maybe it's about time we began discussing a new
> principle - the unnecessariness principle. Over 20,000 chemical
> substances are available in Denmark and new chemical substances are
> constantly being developed. It is quite a jungle to disentangle and
> organise. These chemicals give us many benefits, but often there is
> great uncertainty with regard to how these substances affect the
> environment and our health.
>
> It is when dealing with such matters that the authorities and policy
> makers must try to decide when and where uncertainties are so great that
> the precautionary principle should be applied, and therefore initiatives
> should be taken to limit the use of chemical substances.
>
> It is not an easy task. Denmark is struggling in the EU for far better
> investigation of chemicals and for industry to have far greater
> responsibility for examining substances before they are taken into use.
>
> But perhaps it is time for us to begin discussing a new principle - the
> unnecessariness principle. For example, the next time I want to buy a
> pair of socks, I could find myself faced with a new choice: with or
> without perfume? I know that perfumed socks are now a possibility. The
> question is, are they a necessity?
>
> In the case of chemical substances that we know are acutely harmful to
> our health and the environment, there is no doubt in my mind: they must
> either be banned altogether or restricted in some way. However, there is
> also a grey zone of chemical substances that we at the EPA have begun
> calling unnecessary chemicals.
>
> Unnecessary because the substances make no difference as to whether the
> products work. Perfumed socks are a good example. They undoubtedly add
> colour to some people's lives, but of course the perfume does not make
> the socks last longer, etc. Other examples are antibacterial substances
> in cutting boards, toothpaste and other cosmetics.
>
> The unnecessariness principle concerns the unnecessary chemical
> substances in products we use everyday. This grey zone of chemical
> substances does not put our health and the environment at risk here and
> now, but as an environmental authority, we are concerned that they could
> cause problems in the longer term.
>
> Should the use of unnecessary substances in products be banned or
> limited? Or should consumers have the freedom to choose for themselves
> in the supermarket? And do consumers actually have the knowledge
> required to make this choice? Should the products be labelled or contain
> a declaration? Should consumers receive this information in the form of
> pamphlets or leaflets - or perhaps even an easily accessible database?
> And who should actually decide what is unnecessary?
>
> Opinions probably differ. Some people would perhaps like to see a little
> for every taste on the shelves and think that people should be allowed
> to choose for themselves, while others would like to see products
> containing unnecessary chemicals removed from the market altogether.
>
> We are all consumers, of course, and as a consumer, I myself like to
> know what is in the products I put in my trolley. Also, I do not think
> that the EPA, as an authority, can expect people to spend time and
> energy finding out for themselves what chemicals products contain.
>
> The unnecessariness principle raises many questions about what the EPA,
> as an authority, should do - and right now, there are no clear answers.
> We have just begun discussing these matters - and we would very much
> like to receive ideas and opinions. Have you come across unnecessary
> chemicals in your everyday life? Do you think it is too big a task for
> people to find out for themselves what is in the products they buy? Do
> you care whether there is perfume in washing powder or nappies? And is
> this really something in which the authorities should get involved?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Dolci [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 30 August 2001 17:00
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [LF] Reasons behind EU activities
>
> This "the precautionary principle" is an interesting principle. It does
> no good
> to show that the metal/chemical/whatever has a net benefit to humans or
> the
> environment; that is not relevant. If it does ANY harm then it must be
> banned. I
> doubt that fire would be able to pass the precautionary principle
> standard.
> Would any medicine be able to pass this standard if it was shown that
> 0.01
> percent of the population might suffer an adverse reaction from it, even
> if it
> benefits 99.9% of those to whom it is administered.
> Seems to be a resurrection of the Luddites.
>
> Charles Dolci
>
> *MIME-Version: 1.0
> *content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> *X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0
> *X-MS-Has-Attach:
> *X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
> *Thread-Topic: [LF] Reasons behind EU activities
> *Thread-Index: AcErUakVoTD08JYTQlO3pm7rUsPgAwFE+aOg
> *From: Kay Nimmo <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject: Re: [LF] Reasons behind EU activities
> *To: [log in to unmask]
> *Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> *X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by
> kimba.Eng.Sun.COM id
> CAA16196
> *
> *Dear Gordon
> *
> *It is vital to understand the precautionary principle upon which much
> *future legislation will be based, and of which the Ospar convention is
> *an example i.e. a metal/chemical cannot be used unless it is proven to
> *be of no danger to humans or the environment. This varies from the
> *previous approach which was to wait until some harm had been done (and
> *discovered) until a substance ban was implemented. This aproach
> *therefore leads on to the 'principle of substitution' and also
> *'prevention at source' (meaning effectively that it is preferable not
> to
> *use a hazardous material as this is the only way to ensure no
> *environmental contamination).
> *
> *Under the precautinary principle it is the responsibility of industry
> to
> *demonstrate that a product does NO harm, NOT the responsibility of
> *legislators to show that a product does harm.
> *
> *Whether I agree is not important, however, you should understand that
> *this aproach effects all metals and chemicals (and therefore products)
> *in all sectors, not just electronics. If you wish to challenge
> hazardous
> *materials bans then you will need to challenge the basis of the
> *precautionary principle.
> *
> *Kay
> *
> *-----Original Message-----
> *From: Davy, Gordon [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> *Sent: 22 August 2001 22:28
> *To: [log in to unmask]
> *Subject: [LF] Reasons behind EU activities
> *
> *
> *Kay Nimmo has suggested researching "some of the actual reasons behind
> *the
> *EU activities to ban hazardous substances", and offers a link to a web
> *page
> *(Ospar) as an example of a source of useful information.
> *The example she offers does not measure up to her billing. It provides
> a
> *long list of "candidate substances" and identifies some selection
> *criteria
> *by which they got to be on it, namely materials that (evidently in
> *someone's
> *opinion):
> * (i) due to their highly hazardous properties, are a general
> *threat
> *to the aquatic environment;
> * (ii) show strong indications of risks for the marine
> *environment;
> * (iii) have been found widespread in one or more compartments of
> *the
> *maritime area, or may endanger human health via consumption of food
> from
> *the
> *marine environment;
> * (iv) reach, or are likely to reach, the marine environment from
> *a
> *diversity of sources through various pathways.
> *But what she said would be found there is missing: the reasoning - the
> *documentation that connects any listed material and the assertion of
> *risk.
> *How are we to know that they got it right? In normal scholarship, one
> *publishes the studies that have been conducted so that the work can be
> *critiqued. Such scholarship is missing here, and in many other
> *environmentalist sites that I've seen. It seems that we are expected to
> *have
> *faith in the organization. Maybe they are all too busy to provide the
> *missing information. (I commented some time back about a site that
> *claimed
> *that rosin is a significant threat to the environment. No matter that
> it
> *is
> *derived from trees.)
> *At the risk of over-repetition, environmental activists keep talking
> *about
> *"risks". But in the particular case of lead, speculating about risks is
> *specious, since we know that lead was deliberately introduced into the
> *environment for decades, and is still there. Instead of considering
> *risks of
> *what might happen, all we need to do is to find the consequences of
> what
> *has
> *already happened. The reality is that the amount of new lead getting
> *into
> *the environment has been reduced (drastically) since the removal of
> lead
> *from gasoline, and so has the amount of lead getting into people. If
> for
> *example lead is believed to be "a general threat to the aquatic
> *environment", it would be appropriate to discuss how lead from
> gasoline,
> *fishing sinkers, and shotgun pellets affected the aquatic environment
> in
> *the
> *past, whether things are getting better or worse, and the extent to
> *which
> *banning lead in computers and keeping CRTs out of landfills is going to
> *help.
> *The site also espouses "the precautionary principle" (not defined on
> the
> *page - I hope that this isn't just a fancy phrase for being
> *superstitious),
> *and the "principle of substitution, i.e. the substitution of hazardous
> *substances by less hazardous substances or preferably non-hazardous
> *substances where such alternatives are available", without reference to
> *any
> *sort of cost-benefit analysis. Perhaps these people mean well, but if
> *they
> *want influence others by force of reason and logic (as opposed to such
> *other
> *options as propaganda, political action, and coercion), they will need
> *to
> *improve their page substantially.
> *Kay implied that she knows of sources that explain the reasoning behind
> *the
> *bans, and don't just assert. Perhaps she would be willing to share them
> *with
> *the forum. (I've been seeking this info for a long time, and have
> pretty
> *much concluded that it doesn't exist.) We all know that lead that gets
> *into
> *people (or aquatic life) is bad. That may be interesting, but it's
> *irrelevant. The critical challenge is to show (not just assert) that
> *taking
> *a particular course of action (such as prohibiting the sale of certain
> *kinds
> *of products that contain lead or recycling electronic products) would
> *bring
> *about a noticeable reduction in blood lead levels, and that it would be
> *worth what it would cost. If it fails to meet these requirements, then
> *it's
> *time to pick a new project. Somehow we need to get that message across
> *to
> *the activists. If she agrees, maybe Kay has some suggestions of how it
> *might
> *be accomplished.
> *
> *Gordon Davy
> *Baltimore, MD
> *[log in to unmask]
> *410-993-7399
> *
> *-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> *---------
> *Leadfee Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> *To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text
> *in
> *the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> *To temporarily stop delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET
> *Leadfree NOMAIL
> *Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources &
> Databases
> *> E-mail Archives
> *Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for
> *additional
> *information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
> 847-509-9700
> *ext.5315
> *-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> *---------
> *
> *-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> --
> *Leadfee Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> *To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text
> in
> *the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> *To temporarily stop delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET
> Leadfree
> NOMAIL
> *Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources &
> Databases >
> E-mail Archives
> *Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for
> additional
> *information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
> 847-509-9700
> ext.5315
> *-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> --
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> Leadfee Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text
> in
> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> To temporarily stop delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET
> Leadfree NOMAIL
> Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases
> > E-mail Archives
> Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for
> additional
> information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700
> ext.5315
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Leadfee Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> To temporarily stop delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL
> Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases > E-mail Archives
> Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
> information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leadfee Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL
Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases > E-mail Archives
Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
