Analysis Of The Kid-Safe Chemicals Act
I am reaching out to you regarding concern for the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act of 2008 to be reintroduced to Congress. The Act was introduced in May of 2008 but was not approved by Congress and has not received the recognition that it deserves. As a congressman you understand that the duty of Congress is to help make the United States a better place, placing priority on helping the people. The purpose of the bill was to do just that by amending the Toxic Substances Control Act to help decrease the exposure of children, workers and consumers to toxic chemical substances. However, by this legislation being rejected the Congress has failed to realize the health impact that toxic substances has on human health or does not believe that helping those
…show more content…
This specific argument may have been the one that persuaded Congress to reject the enactment of the bill. However, science argues otherwise. For example, on the package of birth control pills it states that a 0.035 mg. small dose of Ethinyl Estradiol is used and this type of medication is 99% effective in preventing pregnancy. If one small pill can prevent contraception at a “very low dose” then wouldn’t it make sense that toxic substance exposure at a very small dose can have an impact on our health too? Chemicals are found everywhere from the air and water to the cosmetics that we use on an everyday basis. Avoiding exposure is almost impossible. Ken Cook, the President of the Environmental Working Group, explained to the public that even a fetus in the womb is unsafe from toxic exposure. The toxins that the mother is exposed to can transfer through her blood into the umbilical cord passing into the body tissue and cells of the fetus. Ken Cook further highlighted the important issue of the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976 not having been updated. There were 62,000 chemicals assumed to be safe during this era and no other research has been performed to ensure that these chemicals are still truly safe. Scientific evidence proves that there are chemicals that can cause cancer, asthma, birth defects, and infertility. Our health and survival rates have improved over decades due to the advancement of technology which came from scientific research. Science is showing why this is a problem that needs to be addressed and we should
This specific argument may have been the one that persuaded Congress to reject the enactment of the bill. However, science argues otherwise. For example, on the package of birth control pills it states that a 0.035 mg. small dose of Ethinyl Estradiol is used and this type of medication is 99% effective in preventing pregnancy. If one small pill can prevent contraception at a “very low dose” then wouldn’t it make sense that toxic substance exposure at a very small dose can have an impact on our health too? Chemicals are found everywhere from the air and water to the cosmetics that we use on an everyday basis. Avoiding exposure is almost impossible. Ken Cook, the President of the Environmental Working Group, explained to the public that even a fetus in the womb is unsafe from toxic exposure. The toxins that the mother is exposed to can transfer through her blood into the umbilical cord passing into the body tissue and cells of the fetus. Ken Cook further highlighted the important issue of the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976 not having been updated. There were 62,000 chemicals assumed to be safe during this era and no other research has been performed to ensure that these chemicals are still truly safe. Scientific evidence proves that there are chemicals that can cause cancer, asthma, birth defects, and infertility. Our health and survival rates have improved over decades due to the advancement of technology which came from scientific research. Science is showing why this is a problem that needs to be addressed and we should