Coordinating Chemicals Management in NA - The Montebello Agreement

Now, will they enforce it?

Michelle - I see the Montebello agreement as a good mechanism for sharing data, especially between the US (which has it's HPV Challenge) and Canada (which has it's Chemicals Management Plan). The key result is a process by which data will be collected and actually reviewed, which hopefully will identify any smoking guns. I like to say "Data are Power."

As for the borderless continent idea, I really don't even understand what that means. The Montebello Agreement - and the Security & Prosperity Partnership of which it is one part - specifically state that each country retains full sovereignty. Cooperation occurs at the Agency level. Can you really see us letting Mexico dictate to us what we should do? Or even Canada? And vice versa.

Good article David, I'll bet some Regulations come down the pike from this. That is called international law. It would also be Unconstitutional. Hello NAU

Sharon - there really isn't anything to enforce. It's simply an agreement to share data since each has their own program to evaluate chemicals. That should speed up the review of chemicals on each country's Inventory, which is the list of chemicals that were already in commerce when the relevant chemical control laws were passed.

David, "Can you really see us letting Mexico dictate to us what we should do? Or even Canada? And vice versa."

No but I can see the SPP doing it.

Colonel - I see nothing in this that suggests a North American Union. And what exactly is a NUA anyway? What harm is there in cooperating with your neighbors? No one is giving up any sovereignty here.

Hope it helps, thanks for the answer David.

The SPP is simply an agreement to cooperate.

Thanks David~

interesting article. how many agreements send us closer to what Michelle is talking about. if the u.s. has enough agreements with our neighbors, perhaps we'll be set to hook up with euro.

Nothing really changes. They just find loophole in the laws and manage their way anyhow. Unfortunately it will probably take a new major disastor to get things rolling and if it happens anywhere else but the USA we will write it off as other people's problems.

Wonder how many decades that would take. The world does need to cooperate on all ecological agreements.

The question of forming a North American version of the EU is an interesting one (not that the Montebello Agreement or SPP does that).

The EU is primarily a supranational construct to simplify economic trade between member nations. Each member nation represents its interests to the EU and its regulatory bodies the European Commission, European Council, and European Parliament. The system passes Directives, which must then be implemented by each member nation in accordance with each nations own laws. The EU may also pass regulations, which are laws in themselves and apply to all member nations without any further lawmaking in each country. REACH is a regulation, so when it went into effect on June 1, 2007 it did so immediately in all EU member country.

Each EU member nation retains its own sovereignty, though obviously they have agreed to conform to the Directives and Regulations set at the EU level. In recent years the EU has grown from 15 members to 27 members (with others clamoring to get in). So it seems it has many benefits.

thanks

Very good article, David and well written. The situation you describe is hopeful for the future but a little scary for the time being, here. It's unsettling to read of the number of these potentially toxic chemicals. Thanks for the information...

Teresa - which portion(s) of the SPP is worrisome to you?

Thank you, David! 10!

Thanks Dave. The problem with chemicals is that while the vast majority of them can be used safely, there are enough cases where we've been surprised to suggest that we need a better way to identify problem chemicals before they become problems. That is a very hard thing to do.

Interesting article, David. I read the comments about the EU, and you are right, it is more about economics, and I can't really imagine we would do that in North America. They wouldn't be that much benefit to it. Of course, in Europe, I can see why other countries would want to join- look at the Euro compared to the dollar...and what the dollar was worth before the Euro.

No chemicals are completely safe, but knowing how to handle them, dispose of, or if residual may be left in the manufacturing process of product, etc. can be important. Many contracts for product between nations contain all kinds of requirements and clauses regarding chemical use. Finding common ground on what is used etc. may help in that process.
I'm not sure the ins and outs of this agreement, but it sounds acceptable on the face of it. Thanks.

Thank you for your research , time , and info .

Emma - the original EU countries were primarily the major western Europeans who traded with each other anyway. The idea was to make it easier to trade cross borders. It's akin to there being different rules in each of the 50 US states, which then can serve as barriers to trade. Same with the EU; they wanted to lower the barriers by making standards the same. The eastern European countries and others that join are required to commit to raising their environmental and other standards as a precursor to joining the EU. On a worldwide level, the WTO tries to do the same thing (not always successfully).

The Euro was originally set to be approximately equal to the dollar. Baed on my own experiences getting ready to move to Brussels, the exchange vastly favors the Euro now.

It would be to everyones best interest to know about all the chemicals that are useed and made, however safe no of course they are not safe and some of them are hard to contain.
Our goverment passes these laws then give corporations 10 to 20 years to come into complience.
Who is fooling who

Vickie - I agree that it takes way too long to get things done, even though I know that most chemicals are in fact safe to use if used properly (an important caveat). Unfortunately, there are resource issues that mean it can't all be done very fast. I asked the leader of the USEPA's efforts on the Montebello Agreement whether they have the resources to get all the work done in the 2012/2020 timeframe. He admitted that Congress has not provided them with any additional budget to do this, and that they already were shifting resources out of other programs (which I know from personal experience are already severely resource-poor).

One problem with the Montebello agreement (in my opinion) is that it still relies on the governments of Canada and the US to do the vast majority of the work. Industry will likely be required to provide data once requested, but this same EPA leader told me they don't want anyone sending them data yet because they simply cannot handle it.

Time for more smoke and mirrors, no doubt...

In what way Lydia?

Do you really think that this goverment is going to tell people what they are living around and breathing, drinking, etc. I do not .
The companies will buy their way out just like they always do or just pay the fines because they can afford it.
They will also put up money to block any reports that make them look bad,as always the reports will read how they want them to. The timeframe will be changed you can bet on it,beause of money and not wanting to do it .
Like I said who is fooling who?

Vickie - Actually, the government does tell people. There are web sites and databases that list all sorts of information. Also, at least one non-profit organization has an online Scorecard that links to information about chemical use and exposure (www.scorecard.com).

My experience has been that the kind of corruption you suggest is rare (but obviously cannot be ruled out entirely). Generally the problem is resources rather than subterfuge.

I do agree that too often it is simply cheaper to pay fines (or have their insurance pay fines) than to stop manufacturing their products. But here again the companies don't think they are producing unsafe products. Most of the time they are right. Other times they may be wrong but don't have the data needed to show that until someone discovers a problem. So it's less that the companies or the government are somehow evil as it is that the regulatory system doesn't require the right data up front to identify problem chemicals.

I worked in the enviroment field for along time testing all over the U.S. and I know the public is not told the truth about what is around them.
Just the chemicals used in food is a good example

I don't think chemicals will ever be safe but perhaps they will get safer to use now?

vickie- the average person puts stuff down the drain every day that most companies would face stiff fines, or shut down for. Where I worked every chemical came with a MSDS sheet (material safety data sheet) explaining everything about the chemical. No shipments are accepted without one from the manufacturer. Chemicals are separated and disposed of according to type etc., everything is labeled, and not even a dirty rag went in the trash for fear it might have oil on it. There are huge programs for hazardous material, training, (PPE) protective equipment, you name it! Engineers are tasked with finding less dangerous materials on blueprints, and alternatives for old designs. The average home garage contains more health threats than most respectable company work places. The old days are gone, especially with any large company that gets audited by law from county, state, and federal.
I'm not saying things don't happen, but this is serious business anymore.... thank God.

Vickie - aren't the chemicals used in food approved by the FDA?

John - my own experience has mirrored yours....that companies generally work really hard at product stewardship.

I will say that this is not universal however. The larger, more resource-rich, companies will be very diligent with their products. This is especially true for those companies that sell directly to the public and where they cannot afford any problems that would affect their reputations. But there are smaller companies that either don't have enough in-house expertise to adequately comply with the regulations or enough resources to protect their workers or the public who may not steward their products as well. And of course there are the ones that try to get away with unsafe practices or products - but generally their competitors who do play by the rules are quick to point them out to the authorities.

After industrialization has been killing us off slowly over decades, finally, demand is insisting that we 'do' something. Great article. More like it, please.

I doubt any are safe David

I don't see nothing wrong with talking to our fellow countries about chemicals. It doesn't make sense to keep a clean house if your neighbors are dumping toxic waste around your house.

That's a rhetorical question, right? This is one more example of attempts to make the three countries into one giant country - the North American region!

It's kind of scary to think about, but imagine the power this alliance could wield on the world markets!

Thanks Jackie. I've started doing periodic articles on chemical control in the US and around the world. Various countries and regions are trying different ways, but all are trying something, which is a positive in my book.

Chick - good point. I remember growing up in New England when the talk was about acid rain resulting from coal plants in Ohio etc. Now the talk is about transboundary drift from China to the US. The world is a small place, and what happens in one place often transports to others, so we'll all have to work together.

Teresa - I'm sure it does.

Mary - The agreements explicitly state that each country retains absolute sovereignty. Having said that, I personally have not researched the ramifications of such a North American Union, should somehow this agreement morph into one (which again it explicity says it isn't).

So what is it about a NAU that is so scary? Countries are clamoring to get into the EU, so why would a NAU be a bad thing? Someone educate me here please.

The article is good as usual David. Here comes the "but" about the information. The SPP has been meeting for several years I believe. I dont object to the meeting or to the goals of the meetings. I object to the lack of information about the goals of the three leaders. Some characterize SPP as...business leaders creating commerce opportunity, then it is characterized as government. Something of this import should be transparent to the peoples of the countries involved.
On the subject of chemicals, regulating the manufacturing of chemicals can only be good, in the case of Mexico it will take more than the norm to gain compliance. The problem with chemicals is their chain of use, as they are sold and resold there is less and less oversight on their use or combination. my .02cents

This is a very good article,it does give you something to think about.

Thank you for sharing.

David- as far as the EU goes, there is a lot discontentment in some of Europe, and particularly the UK blogs, with the current moves of within the EU. The EU attempted to create a Constitution with more central authority, but it failed many referendums (big time) when put to the people in those countries for a vote. Since it would not pass the people, the governments instead made a "treaty" out of the new rules, stopped any further voting referendums in nations scheduled, thus bypassing the electorate. A sneaky move...
What was once an economic agreement, has turned into a governing body that was not originally intended, or desired by most people in western Europe. It moves closer and closer to one large nation state (socialist?) at the cost of some sovereignty. Not to mention, that the "people" have no say in it's leadership make-up at all. The countries clamoring to get in were under the Soviet Union in eastern Europe and will do anything almost to distance themselves further from that. From their perspective, maybe it seems great? I dunno'....?
Take care.

Thanks James - You make some very good points. I would agree that there has been a severe lack of transparency to the general public. This in itself is not surprising because many things happen at the departmental/ministerial level that don't get a public airing. Most are too technical to be understood by the public anyway. However, my hope is that the next Administration would be more open to telling the public what is going on. The tendency toward secrecy brings out the skeptics in all of us.

James - Regarding your chain of use point. One of things that REACH (the new chemical control legislation in Europe) does is require there to be communication up and down the supply chain. Manufacturers of chemicals will sell to distributors who sell to formulators who sell to downstream users who sell to wholesalers who sell to retailers who sell to consumers. Historically the manufacturer would not worry about what happened once they sold it to someone else. In many cases the formulators didn't want the manufacturer to know what they were using it for because they feared if the manufacturer knew than they would sell the chemical to all the formulators competitors and the price would go up, etc. REACH requires all of these parties to talk, at least enough to identify all the intended uses of the chemical so that these uses can be included in the chemical safety reports.

The Montebello Agreement doesn't require anything like this. Montebello simply facilitates coordination between the regulators so they can do the assessments. One of the big areas of data that will be found missing is use and exposure data.

Thanks Billie

John - excellent summary and great points. The EU Constitution idea fell very flat. The EU has definitely evolved into a supranational regulatory body, though largely with the consent of the member states. Socialist is probably too strong a word, but then much of Europe is pseudosocialist anyway.

As for the leaders of the Commission, Parliament and Council...it seems like there is a group of people that simply switch chairs every few years. The Presidency of the EU rotates to a new member state every 6 months, which makes for a lot of transitions.

David K.,

Very nice article and analysis! I see a lot of comment her about how "safe" chemicals are. Well, it depends on which chemical and how one might be exposed to it. In my job I worked with a lot of training on environmental risks and the prevention of exposure to those which did warrant that.

I know that to assemble the information on environmental hazards takes a great deal of time to locate, identify and document. Once this is done by an organization, whoever is going to administrate or regulate or simply report on it must receive that information from all over and get it entered into the computers to develop and analyze reports.

Now if we had a governmental agency with a couple of thousand unused computers and data entry clerks with nothing else to do, this wouldn't take too long, but if that were the case someone would be loosing their job for over budgeting!

So, it becomes a matter of priority. This being an agreement without the force of law, congress has not acted on it, it comes down to a lower priority than those things which have been encoded into law. Then it comes down to the will of the CEO who is in charge of executing the laws and procedures that we have.

Until it rises to the top there is no need to expect too much. The election could radically change that but there is still the matter of changing something from "regulation" to "law" to insure it is carried out.

Finally, has anyone with good knowledge of these chemicals, their uses, procedures for protection and control, actually read and studied the actual agreements to see that they are doable, reasonable, and needed?

The SPP has no validity as an entity and can enforce nothing.

Does this mean we are going to stop selling DDT to Mexico?... Even-though it was banned for use here decades ago, we have continued its production to sell south of the border. Yes, your coffee has probably been sprayed with DDT.

Another commission!

I would think most chemicals are harmful to some degree. Depends on the use of particular chemicals per say, and for how long?

Thanks for this, David. It puts the issue in front of this general-population audience.

My biggest question here is how much these inter-governmental agreements may prevent a person or class of persons damaged by chemicals from suing for damages. To me, it is this and this only that has the potential to protect people.

The verbiage I have looked at from the EPA regarding chemicals appears to have been written to justify the government's purchase of these substances to spray at the behest of corporations. How effective the chemicals were at killing the target species was the justification for using them. Safety seemed to be an after-thought.

Erin Brockovich's tenacity in proving harm is what protects us far more than a bureaucracy which is a pressure point for powerful influence and which may be deliberately directed to do more paperwork than it has the capacity to do. The mountains of paperwork written in arcane language may not be helpful in determining harm.

Accessible research by outside peer-reviewed scientists is more telling. Sometimes this research is buried beyond the first page of search results on Google. People may find out about their exposure after the fact, and only then invest in research after debilitating symptoms surface.

When the government buys and uses these chemicals, for example on broad swaths of forest land or in marine environments, it puts the taxpayer on the block for some of the costs of damages. In some cases, there has been enough public-relations pressure that the government decides to take some responsibility or to change its practices.

I do not know who took responsibility for the damage in the Alsea River area of Oregon. Higher levels of miscarriage were found in that case, and the spraying was supposed to be discontinued. Residents in Santa Barbara have also been able to stop spraying by government entities. Residents in Washington and New Mexico have been less successful so far.

A battle against these substances is never really won. Constant vigilance is necessary as corporations manipulate the legislative process to maintain their markets and tweak the products so they can call them something else.

Until recently, it has been more difficult and expensive to analyze these chemicals or to design trials that prove damage from them.

While advances in analyzing and identifying harmful substances will facilitate more Erin-Brockovich-type lawsuits, corporations increasingly ask for legislative protection for themselves in the same way the federal government can work to protect itself from lawsuits.

Wealthy and sophisticated consumers often know to buy organic, to hire people to pick their weeds, and to use non-toxic cleaning products. Wealthy people can afford to take these precautions against dangers that are known to them. Even wealthy people, though, if they are uninformed, can suffer harm and not know from whence it came.

When governments and corporations pay for "science," there is a pretty serious danger that "science" gets corrupted by pockets much deeper than that of the modest- or low-income people who tend to live near the worst pollution and to buy the products that put them most at risk.

Corporations tend to use government approval as marketing-campaign text and sometimes to argue that the government's approval means the government should be responsible for damage. Sometimes corporations are pursuing short-term strategies for profit, and if they do suffer consequences for damage, the taxpayer ends up absorbing the costs and sharing the karmic debt of the damage.

The corporate officers may declare bankruptcy and move on to found another short-term corporation.

The "active" ingredients in biocides are only part of the harm nsome times, and companies resist disclosing other ingredients. Sometimes these "carrier" ingredients are extremely harmful. Surfactants are some of the most worrisome of these ingredients.

The oddly named "health-privacy" laws make it difficult to find statistics such as miscarriage statistics. Some harmful practices were stopped in the past by accessing these statistics. From my reading of the "health-privacy" language, it seems to empower some sharing of health-information among interested parties such as insurance companies. I have come to assume that thinking one's health information is private is pretty silly. It's better to do your recommended exercise routines so you can prove you are doing everything you can to be healthy.

As more people in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico are becoming aware of chemical risk, people in other countries are probably at greater risk, as lost markets here prompt a hunt for more profit elsewhere, Africa, for example. The Gates Foundation apparently intends to take biocides into Africa in a big way. They have hired former Monsanto executives to be part of their plans in Africa.

Friends from Santa Barbara have a friend in Kenya, Peter Murage, of Mt. Kenya Organic Farms, who was last heard from at the end of January, in a very distressed E-Mail.

The battle to keep live soil and heritage plants and animals in Africa is at a cross-roads, and modest-income gentle persons are at a frightening disadvantage, notwithstanding the work of Vandana Shiva in India and Wangari Maathi in Kenya. Their fame has not seemed to reach Bill and Melinda Gates, or if the Gates do know of these powerful voices against corporate agricultural processes, the Gates have decided to go against them.

Many in the U.S. believe Canada is less corrupt than our own government, but I hear some refutation of that as well. Some say their medical system works because people who need things quickly just come over here and pay for it.

Between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, I do not know which would get rated worst on a corruption index. Maybe Wikipedia does this kind of rating. What I do believe is that the larger the scale of the cartelization of things, the worse it is for ordinary, non-privileged people.

I do not mean to be too alarmist. There are parts of the world where biodiversity is increasing and where humans are caring well for natural environments. These stewards of the land and earth often communicate with each other directly, and once in a great while you will read something about them in a newspaper or two.

Some of our best and brightest are beginning to focus on alternative-energy strategies. Some other countries are now far ahead of us in this sphere, but we have the capacity to do very well with this once our attention turns to it in earnest.

When I contemplate our capacity to turn kudzu into alcohol, I have some hope. Many of the worst chemicals are made from by-products of the oil industry. Many people are not aware that Prohibition was funded by early oil-industry magnates. Prohibition shut down competition to the oil industry from ethyl alcohol, in addition to the famous increase in organized crime.

It is interesting that one of the consequences of the so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) agreement is to prevent peace workers from crossing the Canadian border from the U.S. to meet with peace workers in Canada.

Agreements between countries that are simple and accessible to the understanding of all people would seem OK to me. Complicated agreements that foster big bureaucracies seem likely to exploit ordinary people to me. They smack of collusion in support of corruption. They restrict kindly interaction of ordinary people, a process former president Dwight Eisenhower, in his later years, worked to promote. He felt this would be the best protection against military adventures by politicians.

Mary S - What can I say but thank you for your very well written and thought out comments. There are a few details that I would interpret differently, but you've clearly made your points.

I hope everyone takes the time to read Mary's comments and provide your own feedback on what she has written. Do you agree with each of her points?

One point about bureaucracies. They are inherently complicated and cumbersome. In most cases they become self promoting and tend to lose track of their original purpose (which is not simply to fill out forms to be filed away unreviewed by anyone making decisions). I would suggest that there is more incompetence than collusion or corruption in bureaucracies.

It will be interesting to see what comes from Montbello -- words, or deeds. Sadly, I am skeptical. Without a strong enforcement arm as part of the agreement, it is difficult to see how this is going to encourage the evolution of greater safety in the chemical industry.

Don't Get me Started - that's a good question. There are some chemicals that the US and/or Canada have restricted but are still used in other countries, including Mexico.

This relates to something Mary said as well. DDT is used in parts of Africa against malaria. Because it is banned in most developed countries there are many who have fought against it being used in Africa. However, in those areas where its use was blocked, many many people died of malaria. So is the risk of using this chemical better than the deaths caused by malaria because the chemical was not used? Who gets to make that decision - us, the leadership of the country in Africa, the local elders, the people themselves? An interesting problem.

I have spoken with people at EPA that are leading the US efforts on Montebello and they seem intent on fulfilling the agreement. Keep in mind that this isn't something that would need enforcement...it's an agreement to cooperate on evaluating chemicals. Both Canada and the US are evaluating chemicals already. What Montebello does is formally give them permission to share (non-confidential) data and confer on opinions. By "comparing notes," the two countries should be able to get through the chemicals a little faster. Mexico, of course, is simply along for the ride and hopes to get its own Inventory up and running because of the agreement (nothing would happen there otherwise).

Fascinating. The discussion is great, too. I think there is a LOT of work before chemicals would be safe.

James C - thanks for your comments. You allude to the authority given by the agreement...or the lack thereof. Montebello definitely provides no statutory authority to EPA to do what they are doing. Congress would have to revise TSCA (the Toxic Substances Control Act) to give such authority. But EPA has been moving along based on precedent set by the voluntary HPV Challenge agreement with industry and the NGOs. The HPV Challenge doesn't have any statutory authority either (although it was pushed by then-VP Al Gore), but since both industry and the advocacy community both agreed to it there hasn't been any challenge made to the statutory authority.

The good thing about this is the sharing of Data which is a good start. The one thing that David pointed out is very true . . . "most chemicals are in fact safe to use if used properly (an important caveat)."

Vickie brought up some very good points, and I tend to agree with her line of thinking.

Very good Article, David. As always, you bring forth interesting content.

Blessings ~
Rene A.

I hope it doesn't turn into the *Monsanto* Agreement! Chemical companies setting the guidelines for what's hazardous.

Thanks Rene for the support.

James - Actually, the vast majority of the work is being done by the respective environmental agencies in the US and Canada, which is why there is such a resource problem. Under REACH in the EU, the Industry has to most of the initial work to provide the data, and then the new Agency (in Helsinki of all places) reviews it and the member states do the evaluation.

EM - Well, Bush was there at the announcement. Most of these things are done at the Minister/Department/Agency level, so I doubt he really knew what he was announcing.

Robin - true...chemicals are here to stay. Even "natural" materials are chemicals. But we can be better about making sure they are safe.

quite a read great article and thread

Thanks Jules

This is a most thoughtful article. I will not try to support the many good points already made, but I will add that another serious concern is in the transport of chemicals. While oil spills are common concerns, chemical spills on both land and water can be devestatind. Given the decaying transport infrastructure in use, the cost of a comprehensive plan for chemical and waste management must engage the need to deal with the movement of the toxic materials we create. Thank you again for this excellent fiscussion. In my homeland, we have very serious problems, especially with fertilizers and water pollution from their use. I believe environmental efforts are the turning point issue of this century.

Isis - excellent point. Many chemicals are transported in bulk by rail or truck. There has been a lot of concern lately that rail routes often go through populated areas. Accidents are rare, but when they happen they certainly hit the news. The fact that our nations infrastructure hasn't been getting enough attention makes the future prospects of concern.

No.

Thank you for bringing up the SPP which, for some reason, never seems to be covered in the MSM. What's the big secret??

See this from democrats in Canada:

"But the SPP is not all just high-level policy talk. It is already affecting our lives directly. In early 2007, an SPP priority to harmonize rules on pesticide residues resulted in Canada allowing higher levels of pesticides in the food we eat. The SPP's goal of creating a North American no-fly list means that air travelers are being stopped from boarding their flights just because their names resemble one of almost half a million people U.S. officials implausibly consider an immediate threat. And the SPP's plan for a fivefold increase in Alberta tar sands production makes it impossible for Canada to reduce greenhouse gas emissions – putting everyone at increased risk from climate change. Clearly the public needs a much larger say in these kinds of decisions. "

Thanks Diana for the additional info on the SPP. I admit to being largely in the dark about the full SPP; mostly I've focused on the Montebello Agreement portion because it relates to my work.

Until recently, the only inkling I've had of the SPP was from the conspiracy theory folks. So it definitely hasn't been covered as well by the MSM. I suspect this would be something that Lou Dobbs on CNN would find interesting, or perhaps he's already been covering it.

What bothers me, David, is that the SPP seems to have given itself, in some cases, more power than the legislature. They don't have to bring any proposals to Congress; they can just set "standards" at their will - and they are very pro-corporation.

I'm not one of the conspiracy theorists - just inquisitive!

Diana - it does appear that the SPP effectively supercedes existing authority. I questioned the EPA about whether TSCA would need to be reworked to give EPA the authority to do what they are doing already (as part of the HPV Challenge) or in the future (as the Montebello Agreement progresses) and I didn't really get an answer. Instead I was told that they were working within the voluntary framework, so no statutory authority was necessary. I'm all in favor of more chemical information, but I wonder if it might be more effective if there was some statutory authority behind it.

As for the conspiracy theorists, I certainly wasn't suggesting you were one. Unfortunately, there are many out there and any valid argument or question they may have gets lost among their otherwise wild and unsubstantiated fantasies. I welcome your input to this article and to furthering my knowledge of the SPP. I definitely want to find out more about the SPP generally in addition to the Montebello agreement. As you say, it would be nice if it were more transparent. [Oh, and apparently Lou Dobbs has talked about it in the past]

Amen, Diana.

"Conspiracy" used as an adjective is an interesting construction. I worked for some time with a holocaust survivor who survived because she was justifiably alert to danger. She lost her parents because they thought she was alarmist.

Thanks again for this thread, David.

very interesting article. thanks for sharing.

Mary - and thanks for contributing.

My biggest worry is that there are way too many people yelling that the sky is falling out of some irrational fear of reality, and when they or others have valid concerns they get ignored. I would rather people rationally question authority and back up their assertions.

The thing here is that James Ascher's fear, above, is a proper fear, for systemic reasons. Where people do not know to protect themselves, the harm can go on until the damage is widespread and ugly enough that the larger community notices. An example of this that comes to my mind is Love Canal.

In the meantime, the people who can pay for a louder voice prevail. So much damage can go on while this perks.

A community like Santa Barbara has the resources to protect itself.

I have to say, though, there are instances where even very wealthy communities suffer damage because they are not paying attention. The loss of water grasses on the East Coast came about from water pollution that could have been addressed long ago given the resources there. Pollution is less there now, and the grasses are returning, along with plant and animal diversity lost for decades.

If a small company is incompetent or harmful, it will be outcompeted. If a large one is, it may get subsidized.

When bureaucracies function poorly because of incompetence or corruption, it is exploitive of people who are forced to pay taxes. An issue related to this is that of laws so obscure that they cannot be fairly enforced. When laws are unclear and unenforceable equally for all people, then the rule of law is undermined.

I am not sure the undermining of law is the worst consequence. I feel that economic polarization of the community also results. This creates marginalized people with nothing to lose. That is why I would not use the word "conspiracy" as an adjective.

While conspiracies are rarer than alleged by some, they do exist. Laws unequally enforced result in discrimination. Discrimination looks like conspiracy to the groups on the receiving end of unequal application of the law. I

In the brainstorming part of group process, participants are told to just throw their ideas out there. A later process is examining what's there for the ones the group wants to go with.

Vector-control agencies where I live advise care about stagnant water to control mosquitoes. There are also non-toxic substances that you can put it water. In the mountains, mosquitoes are trout food, and they seem to get largely left alone up there.

Non-toxic remedies that are used in advantaged countries should be the first remedies offered to less-advantaged countries, in my view. Floating plant-based oils like neem or even citrus can be very toxic to insects, but also to fish, unfortunately. Local people should make the decisions.

Open communication is hard and time-consuming, which is why some politicians avoid it, I guess. There are times I am glad I am a peon.

We then bump into the tough issues of discrimination and poverty. One might think that police would want to go after violent crime. Some officers do, especially if they live in the jurisdiction they police. I don't guess I have to spell out the other scenarios though.

Thanks Mary for all your input.

You mention Love Canal above. I find the Love Canal case illustrative, but probably not for the same reasons. Originally it was used as a disposal site by the town, then later owned by a chemical company, which expanded and continued to use the site for hazardous waste disposal. Even though we now know it was inadequate, disposal was in accordance with what was law at the time. Long after the site was inactivated, the town wanted the land for building and initially Hooker refused to sell because of the past use and potential danger. Eventually the land was bought and against recommendations it was used to build the school, etc. The building process further disrupted the natural clay barriers and made the problem even worse.

I mention this not to exonerate Hooker, but to illustrate how back then the risks were not very well thought out - both in how the waste was initially disposed of and the actions of the town to develop the site. It is this lack of foresight that causes most of the toxic problems we experience. Toxic waste was created and disposed of without much thought for possible future ramifications. Chemicals were designed to be persistent without much thought about how having toxic chemicals persist in the environment might not be a good thing. Way too much thinking about "can we make it" and not enough thinking about "should we make it."

Of course, hindsight is 20/20, and we have learned (at least a little) from past mistakes. The trick is to be thinking ahead now as we design new chemicals and not have to wait until problems arise. That is the theory behind "green chemistry;" to design chemicals that are not toxic in the first place and/or more sustainable cradle to cradle. We're not there yet by any stretch of the imagination, but the Montebello agreement at least gives the US and Canadian environmental agencies an opportunity to weed out any heritage chemicals of concern.

Mary/Diana and others - I'm curious as to what you think about President Bush's trip to Africa. I saw on the news that he was pushing the idea of "treated" mosquito nets, which begs the question of what are the nets treated with.

I am living in Switzerland and i want to be contaminated by my own good Swiss National Chemistry, not even by Europeen`s ones. What should I do?

Thanks for the notice -- interesting.

The Montebello agreement should help give both the US and Canada enough data to use what statutory authority they have to request additional information on use and exposure, something that is often lacking when they do risk assessments.

David,

I would agree that the information you describe is the real starting point. And they didn't need any Montebello agreement to start digging it out. When underground tanks became or were suspected of being, a problem, they had no trouble asking, actually demanding, that information with dire threats for failure to comply. When they decided to "refarm" the broadcast airways they demanded an inventory from all agencies, again under threat of bad things! If the government decides they want it, they'll get it!

David, are you aware of the controversy over endocrine disruptors? How about the information on atrazine and cancer?

If you go to Europe, you will be safer from some endocrine disruptors, as the science is well accepted there. Acording to NPR, a boatload of products were turned away from there but allowed to land and unload here.

I do not expect the government to protect people from this stuff. The retail companies who sell it, though, really should know better. As large as they are, they are somewhat likely to eventually suffer some consequences.

Mary - I doubt that I'll be safer in Europe from endocrine disruptors than in the US. Virtually no chemicals have been shown to be actual endocrine disruptors; Europe simply is quicker to pull the plug than the US. Honestly, science doesn't yet have a good way of accurately measuring what is an endocrine disruptor or not, and even when we think we do, we don't really know if it means anything long term. It's likely that some chemicals are in fact problems, but most of the bans/restrictions have been precautionary and speculative rather than scientifically based. We really need to spend more on doing real science to get real problem chemicals than banning something without reason. The trick is to know the difference. Aye, there's the rub.

Retail companies are even in less of a position to identify real problems. Companies like WalMart pick a few chemcials with bad names and refuse to sell them. They may or may not really be protecting the public by doing so, but there main concern is protection themselves from lawsuits and other bad publicity, sad to say.

Thanks for the time and effort you put in to this article David. I hope the data that is collected is used in a common sense way, which is usually a challenge for the US Government.

You're welcome Katherine - I think the government will try to use the data...the problem, as always, is budget, manpower and other resources. The EPA budget gets cut every year and much of what is budgeted is targeted toward specific programs.

If you follow the bouncing $ sign you will find out why this agreement was signed. Our government doesn't do anything with out it being good for big business. I hope this doesn't bite us in the butt like the Regain NAFTA agreement.

Good question...

Well, it certainly has a trade component (hence the "prosperity" portion of the name). The Montebello portion focuses on chemical control specifically.