By Mike Lee

Seven years ago, the country's largest HMO started trying to avoid products containing toxic chemicals. In its bid to protect patients and workers, Kaiser Permanente looked at everything from building materials to medical supplies.

But the health provider's initiative ran into a serious problem: It could find few details on the toxicity of such items.

The HMO's quandary is one reason California should set a national standard by creating a comprehensive strategy to cut use of toxic chemicals, according to a University of California report delivered to the California state Legislature in March. Labor groups, environmentalists, and chemical producers had anticipated the landmark study for months.

The report blamed weak federal oversight, including limited requirements for companies to report data about most of the tens of thousands of chemicals used nationwide.

Its conclusions reflect growing uneasiness in California about the pervasiveness of chemicals in people's bodies and the environment.

Each year, some 23,000 Californians are diagnosed with chronic diseases caused by exposure to chemicals in the workplace, said Michael Wilson, the study's lead author and an assistant research scientist at UC Berkeley. An additional 5,600 people die annually as a result of such exposure, the report said.

Now the focus is on an overall blueprint to protect public health, provide clear guidelines for industry and promote environmentally friendly products through “green chemistry.”

“Unless the state of California tackles these issues, they are not likely to get resolved,” said state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, chairman of the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. “We are going to have to do it ourselves.”

Any kind of sweeping chemical-reduction plan would touch virtually every business sector in California, from health care and manufacturing to electronics and petroleum refining. Chemicals are the building blocks of industry, and even health advocates acknowledge the important role they play in modern life.

At the Industrial Environmental Association in San Diego, executive director Patti Krebs said she supports Wilson's call for more information and education. California already is known as the toughest environmental regulator in the nation, Krebs added.

“All of the major companies are . . . looking for effective compounds that have less impact on the environment,” she said. “Rather than having some overarching government mandate, what makes sense is to . . . offer incentives to companies who are pursuing green chemistry.”

Labor leaders said a large-scale strategy is needed because chemical contamination is a major public health problem.

“It's clear that there are preventable illnesses and deaths,” said Laura Kurre, director of education at United Healthcare Workers West in Oakland.

At the Just Transition Alliance, an environmental justice organization in National City, executive director Jose Bravo said the study's numbers on workplace deaths and diseases don't capture the full negative impact of chemicals in California.

“What happens when the exposure goes outside the chain link fence?” said Bravo. “Nobody really has the numbers of how much these chemicals are impacting communities.”

It is clear that the nation's list of hazardous waste sites is growing quickly as chemical use expands. Besides the 77,000 such places now listed, 200,000 more are expected to be added by 2033.

Typically, these sites have chemicals that pollute the soil or water. They include old manufacturing plants, dumps, military installations and gas stations with leaky tanks.
Wilson – who consulted scientists and professors statewide – recommends increasing the amount of safety testing for chemicals, disclosing the results of such analysis to the public, improving government tools for prioritizing toxic substances and supporting the development of less-hazardous materials.

It's too soon to say what related legislation would mandate or what the cost might be, though the tab could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Bills are likely to be introduced next year after public and legislative hearings on the report, which the Legislature commissioned in 2004.

Environmentalists and public health workers are embracing the report even before its official release.

“It's the most important document on the reform of chemical regulations in the U.S. in many years,” said Daryl Ditz, senior policy adviser at the Center for International Environmental Law in Washington, D.C.

The industry buzzword for Wilson's concept is “green chemistry,” or the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use of toxic substances. It includes using renewable raw materials rather than petroleum, as well as making products that aren't hazardous to the environment and don't accumulate in people's bodies.

“California has an obligation to step up and be the national and international leader in this important new technology,” said Richard Jackson, formerly a top health officer for California.

At Kaiser Permanente, environmental stewardship manager Lynn Garske said the attention being focused on reducing chemical risks will send an important signal to manufacturers that they need to be concerned about what they put in their products.

“This report is going to get many other organizations requesting the same (safety) information that we are,” Garske said. “The more that people ask for the this . . . or they ask for products without known toxic chemicals, the more manufacturers can respond.”

The state's association of chemical producers said the report is a laudable attempt to synthesize complex issues, but it likely will challenge some of the study's conclusions after a complete review.

John Ulrich, a consultant and lobbyist for the Chemical Industry Council of California, said the industry has started several environmentally friendly initiatives.

“I can find a lot of points of agreement with (the study) on process and goals at the 30,000-foot level,” Ulrich said. “When it gets into the implementation parts and how that impacts the men and women who work in our chemical facilities in California, it becomes a little more difficult.”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – the main federal entity that regulates chemicals – said its leaders haven't analyzed the report.

“Green chemistry” is one of the agency's core goals, said EPA spokesman Mark Merchant in San Francisco, and a handful of federal laws already create a “fairly comprehensive” policy on chemicals.

Wilson's report said the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 has provided manufacturers with little incentive to develop less-toxic chemicals. He also said the law has not required such companies to generate and make public the toxicity data for 99 percent of chemicals in commercial use.

Federal regulators have set limits on workplace exposure to chemicals for only about 7 percent of the most heavily used chemicals in the country, he added.

As a result, Wilson said, consumers, business owners and others are unable to identify what is in their products and what other materials might be safer.