Chemical Policy Reform: The Louisville Charter

Chemical Policy Reform: The Louisville Charter

 I believe that the Louisville Charter and its proposed policy elements, would be a great benefit to both environmental and public health in the Louisville area. Also, I would hope that the passage of such policies in Louisville would serve as a catalyst to promote similar changes throughout the United States. The policies, and policy elements of the charter remind me of the policies that many other European countries have already implemented. It is unnerving that the United States is so far behind in terms of such environmental policies, and I hope to see such policies become implemented in the near future. 

Require Safer Substitutes and Solutions:

The first element of the charter concerns the substitution and/or solutions for hazardous chemical emissions. Moreover, for those entities that substitute and/or eliminate their use of hazardous chemicals, they are rewarded. Both the actions of seeking to eliminate hazardous chemicals, and providing a reward to the entities that make such changes appears to be very prudent. It may costs certain industries a substantial amount to lessen or eradicate their use of toxic substances, so providing some reward would hopefully encourage them to move forward with positive changes. 

Phase Out Persistent, Bioaccumulative, or Highly Toxic Chemicals:

This element of policy reform prioritizes the elimination of toxic substances which are slow to degrade, are negative to the health of the environment and public, and the exportation of such substances. This makes me think of radioactive and nuclear waste, which often times takes an incredibly long time to degrade to levels which are not harmful to the environment or public health. Also, it makes me consider the implementation of such policies when it comes to landfills and the use and management of waste, in general. I believe that our current systems of waste management contribute to a very large source of slowly decaying toxic substances. Therefore, I can see that such a policy which seeks to prioritize the elimination of slowly degrading toxic substance may prioritize waste disposal and management. 

Give the Public and Workers the Full Right-to-Know and Participate:

Providing everyone with the knowledge they need to make a choice as to whether or not they will be exposed to toxic substances is something which I particularly support. As we have seen through several of our exercises in this class, often times we are exposed to toxins out of pure ignorance. However, provided with the necessary knowledge, I am certain that most would not choose to be exposed to these toxins. Therefore, it would seem appropriate that if we are to have a choice, we should be give the right to know what we are potentially exposing ourselves to. 

Act on Early Warnings:

It would seem standard to act of the early warning signs of environmental and public health hazards, but this does not always appear to happen. However, I believe that such policies aimed at improving environmental and public health should focus on preventing maladies well before it gets out-of-hand.

Require Comprehensive Safety Data for All Chemicals:

This element of environmental health policies is similar to the "right to know" policy. No entity that sells or produces potentially harmful substances should be allowed to go without informing the public of what harmful materials their products may contain.  In order for people to protect themselves, they must have the knowledge of what risks they may be taking when purchasing or using certain products. This policy element is ethically sound. The fact that this is even needed suggest that there are some serious issues present within the current policies imposed on the manufacturers of toxic substances. 

Take Immediate Action to Protect Communities and Workers:

I really enjoyed this element in the Louisville Charter, because it specifies that by taking immediate action on issues putting communities at risk, it also helps eliminate the possibility of a disproportionate health burden being placed n a certain segment of the population. For instance, it is often the areas of higher socioeconomic status that enjoy easy access to public transit, healthy food options, safe parks and recreation, clean air, while those at a lower socioeconomic status do not.  This provides an open door to a disproportionate health burden being placed on those of lower socioeconomic status. Therefore, immediate actions aimed at eliminating health hazards, regardless of which community is being affected, appear to be a great way to also help eliminate disproportionate health burdens being placed on the backs of the poor.