This document summarizes a class lecture on the role of government in regulating product safety and sustainability. It discusses how the EU has taken a stronger precautionary approach to toxic chemicals compared to the US. For example, the EU banned certain phthalates in toys earlier than the US. The document also outlines a shift towards stronger environmental policy and chemical regulation under the Obama administration in the US.

1. IF PRODUCTS
COULD TELL THEIR
STORIES
TOWARDS A MODEL OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN
JEN VAN DER MEER
NYU ITP
WEEK 4: MARCH 1, 2010

2. RECALLED 2_12_2009

3. RECALLED 2_25_2010

4. RECALLED 2_18_2010

5. TODAY’S FOCUS:
THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN REGULATING HOW
STUFF IS MADE
_Political Anaesthesia
_Government: Local, State, National
Sex and Plastic
CPSIA Debate
Shift in US Environmental Policy
_International: Precautionary Principal

6. CAN INVERTED QUARANTINE EVEN WORK?
Water
• DRINKING
Drinking
Cooking
• EATING
• BREATHING
Biologic

7. CAN INVERTED QUARANTINE EVEN WORK?
• DRINKING
• EATING
• BREATHING

8. CAN INVERTED QUARANTINE EVEN WORK?
• DRINKING
• EATING
• BREATHING

9. CAN INVERTED QUARANTINE EVEN WORK?
“Practicing inverted quarantine
exacts a psychic toll, … requires
that one organize one’s whole
existence around the perceived
need to erect and forever maintain
barriers through constant and
repetitive acts of monitoring,
avoidance, separation and
enclosure. (It) would have to
become the organizing principle
for the conduct of every day life.“
_Szasz

10. CONSEQUENCES OF INVERTED QUARANTINE:
POLITICAL ANESTHESIA
Inverted quarantine changes people’s experience. It alters their
perception of their situation. Their sense of being at risk
diminishes. The feeling, correct or not, that they have done
something effective to protect themselves reduces the urgency
to do something more abut what, until then, felt threatening to
them. If many people experience such a reduction in urgency, that
will have consequences in a democracy.
“Political anesthesia” – reduction in urgency, having taken care of
the threat.

11. WHAT THE FRACK?

12. RISE OF EU, DECLINE OF US
America used to lead the world in protecting its citizens from
environmental harm.
Over the last 15+ years, the EU began to lead the way in establishing
stronger environmental standards.
Other countries are banning toxic chemicals that Americans still use.

13. WHY THE SHIFT IN POWER?
1989: Montreal Protocol– led by the US – to ban ozone-depleting
chemicals.
2001: POPS convention: Stockholm Convention on Persistent
Organic Pollutants.
Bush signed just after he took office in 2001, but it was never
ratified, because Bush’s legal team took issue with the fact that the
international agreement could supersede US law, and introduce new
chemicals to ban without the US’s direct authority.
Will the US regain power under Obama?

14. PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
EU adopts the precautionary principle: acting to avoid serious or
irreversible potential harm, despite lack of scientific certainty as to
the likelihood, magnitude, or causation of that harm.
Look for patterns, act in anticipation of risk.
Particularly when children are involved.
US principle: do not act until scientific consensus on causation has
been established.
Greater risk is in tempering economic growth for uncertain
environmental outcome.

15. ARGUMENT VS. PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
Stifles innovation.
Stops progress.
Anti-business.
Embedded in the Precautionary Principle is the notion that we can
anticipate all of the ramifications of a technology in advance and can
tell whether on balance it will be a net benefit or cost to humanity and
the environment.

16. What’s the harm in these ducks?

20. Learning from rats: effect of phthalates on hormonal
development in male rats and baby boy humans

21. ANO-GENITAL DISTANCE
Dr. Shanna Swan: studied pregnant mothers and
their infant sons.
Certain phthalates serve as endocrine disruptors
– potentially leading to the “feminization of
infant boys.”
Chemical industry response: this is “rat
syndrome.”

22. US has become a “dumping ground” for
Chemicals not sold in the ROW

23. EFFECT OF BAN ON BUSINESS OF PHTHALATES
Danisco and BASF developed alternatives, no change to the
European toy market in the years after the ban.
Mattel, Hasbro, Toys R Us developed their own ban on levels of
phthalates in children’s toys.
Dr. Swan: “Substitutes are working. Why take the risk? Why put this
into kids bodies if we don’t have to?”

24. PHTHALATES TODAY in the US
2006 California state senator – Wilma Chan – launched a bill to ban 6
types of phthalates that were already banned in the EU.
Heavy lobby by Toy industry to halt the ban.
90% of toys are made in China, but the fear was that the ban would
affect small-medium sized toy makers.
Banned first in San Francisco 2007.

25. PHTHALATES NOW BANNED IN TEETHERS
Then in 2008, in response to a crisis in consumer confidence, the CPSIA
was passed.
Starting on February 10, 2009, certain children’s toys and child care
articles can no longer be sold, offered for sale, manufactured or
imported for sale in the United States if they contain more than 0.1% of
specified phthalates. In addition, CPSC staff will sample teethers,
rattles and pacifiers to confirm that manufacturers continue their
practice of not using prohibited phthalates.
Major conflict and confusion pits environmental activists against small
business owners, ETSY and Ebay sellers, who are now facing significant
testing costs to comply with the ban.
Major toy companies that already adopted their own bans are ahead of
the curve.

26. BIG BUSINESS BENEFITS
Major toy companies that already adopted their own bans are ahead of
the curve in terms of testing:
Mattel, Hasbro, Toys R Us.

27. http://heatherknitzdesigns.blogspot.com

28. SHIFT IN EPA UNDER OBAMA
From “voluntary programs” to regulation
GHG emissions are a threat to public safety
Mercury Policy – Global Treaty Ban
Montaintop removal – more difficult
Review of mining permits
Proactive stance on toxic chemicals
“First, we need to review all chemicals against safety
standards that are based solely on considerations of risk -
not economics or other factors - and we must set these
standards at levels that are protective of human health and
the environment.” _Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator,
September 29, 2009

29. SHIFT IN LOCUS OF INNOVATION
US’s refusal to sign Kyoto accord shifted business opportunities
from the US to the EU and China – investments in renewable energy,
clean development, and updating of old factories.
Hot Flat and Crowded: proposes that an ambitious national strategy
—which Friedman calls "Geo-Greenism"—is not only what we need to
save the planet from overheating; it is what we need to make
America healthier, richer, more innovative, more productive, and
more secure.

30. TWEAKED TO TELL THE TRUTH
We already had a market that subsidizes fossil fuel at the
expense of renewable energy.
In a world that's hot, flat and crowded, clean tech has to be
the next great global industry and therefore the country that
takes the lead in clean power and clean tech is going to, by
definition, be an economic and strategic leader in the 21st
century; and that's why there's absolutely no contradiction
not only between going green and being patriotic,
geopolitical and geostrategic. They actually go together.
The free market will be fine, he says, so long as it’s tweaked
to start telling the truth, reflecting the true cost to the earth
of all that we consume.

31. COPENHAGEN

32. COPENHAGEN
The Copenhagen accord recognizes the scientific case for keeping temperature
rises to no more than 2C but does not contain commitments to emissions
reductions to achieve that goal..
Brokered between China, South Africa, India, Brazil and the US.
Considered a huge failure by countries in developing world who had been holding
out for deeper emission cuts to hold the global temperature rise to 1.5C this
century. As widely expected, all references to 1.5C in past drafts were removed at
the last minute, but more surprisingly, the earlier 2050 goal of reducing global CO2
emissions by 80% was also dropped.
Concession; The deal aims to provide $30bn a year for poor countries to adapt to
climate change from next year to 2012, and $100bn a year by 2020.
Shift in power from US  China

33. NEXT CLASS:
Readings:
Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and What’s at
Stake for American Power. Chapter 1: Soft Power, Hard Edge.
Chapter 4: Two Houses of Risk, pp. 1-19, 67-82.
Assignment due next class: Government policy is changing quickly.
For the product you’ve chosen to analyze, research which
government agencies have an effect over the system of how the
product is created: FDA, EPA, CDC, FTC… Are states and local
governments regulating this product, or do they have plans to?
Share your findings on your blog.