On August 21, 2007
Canadian Prime Minister Harper, U.S. President Bush, and Mexican President Calderón held a Security and Prosperity Partnership summit in Montebello, Quebec. Their joint statement unveiled a new Regulatory Cooperation Framework and was accompanied
by a two-page statement proposing “strengthened regulatory cooperation among our countries in the area of chemicals” with goals for 2012 and beyond.
For its part, the U.S. government pledged by 2012 “to assess and initiate needed action on the over 9,000 existing chemicals produced above 25,000 pounds [11 metric tons] per year in the United States.” Unfortunately, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lacks both the data and the legal authority necessary to regulate these chemicals. The EPA has failed to ban any substances under the federal Toxic Substances Control Act since its asbestos regulations were overturned in court in 1991. Even if the Bush Administration was genuinely committed to its goal “to assess and initiate needed action” on these chemicals, the EPA’s options to take long-needed action would be extremely limited under this outdated and ineffective statute.
In contrast, Canada has already undertaken its own assessment of 23,000 chemicals and identified some 4,000 as “toxic” under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). Under the new Regulatory Cooperation Framework the Canada government intends to complete this assessment, take regulatory action on high priority substances, and assess lower priority chemicals by 2012. Mexico agreed to develop a national inventory of dangerous materials and to enhance its capacity to assess and manage chemicals.
“Apparently, the Bush Administration has not noticed that the United States lags behind Canada and, in some cases, behind Mexico in protecting its citizens from dangerous chemicals,” said Daryl Ditz, Senior Policy Advisor for Chemicals at the nonprofit Center for International Environmental Law. For example, both nations have ratified a set of international environmental agreements on toxic chemicals, while the United States has not.
These nonbinding national commitments pale in comparison with the legal requirements under the European Union’s REACH legislation, a comprehensive approach that includes mandatory reporting and the regulatory authority to restrict or ban specific chemicals. In the absence of U.S. leadership, REACH is rapidly becoming a de facto standard for international trade in chemicals. Meanwhile, the North American proposals are not likely to harmonize the fragmented approaches across the three countries, leaving workers, communities and consumers facing continued risks at home from unregulated chemicals. “This initiative does not ensure the sound management of chemicals in North America by 2020, a global commitment made by the three countries at the World Summit on Sustainable Development,” Ditz said.