Poison Politics: A Contentious History of Consumer Protection Against Dangerous Household Chemicals in the United States.
At the time of this research, Marian Moser Jones and Isidore Daniel Benrubi were with the Center for History and Ethics, Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY. At the time of the final writing and revisions, Marian Moser Jones was with the Department of Family Science, University of Maryland School of Public Health, College Park, and Isidore Daniel Benrubi was with University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville.American Journal of Public Health (Impact Factor: 4.55). 03/2013; 103(5). DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.301066
The history of consumer protection against household poisons presents a key case study of the uniquely American struggle to balance public health and safety with the interests of business. By the late 19th century, package designs, warning labels, and state statutes had formed an uneven patchwork of protective mechanisms against accidental poisonings. As household chemicals proliferated in the early 20th century, physicians concerned with childhood poisonings pressured the federal government to enact legislation mandating warning labels on packaging for these substances. Manufacturers of household chemicals agreed to labeling requirements for caustic poisons but resisted broader regulation. Accidental poisonings of children continued to increase until the enactment of broad labeling and packaging legislation in the 1960s and 1970s. This history suggests that voluntary agreements between government agencies and manufacturers are inadequate to protect consumers against household poisonings and that, in the United States, protective household chemical regulation proceeds in a reactive rather than a precautionary manner. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print March 14, 2013: e1-e13. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.301066).
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The article focuses on several important issues concerning the current status and use of the substitution principle in chemicals regulation. Substitution of dangerous substances by less dangerous ones has become an important objective in the EU chemicals policy. Within the REACH regulation, substitution is often referred to in the context of authorization of substances of very high concern (SVHC) with the aim of eventual replacement by safer alternatives or technologies. However, important drivers for substitution also exist in other parts of REACH as well as in related legislation. Priority is normally given to include substances with PBT or vPvB properties or wide dispersive use or high volumes. Thus without attempting to do risk assessment, the potential for human and environmental exposure is clearly considered in setting the priorities for sending substances into the authorization regime.Journal of Risk Research 05/2014; 17(5). DOI:10.1080/13669877.2013.841737 · 1.27 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.