Ideal Chemical Policy
M8.5 Ideal Chemical Policy
I think the ideal chemical policy needs two elements, it needs to be centralized and universal and it needs to be mandatory. I do not think that the mechanism we have now, which only seems to have restrictions for severely hazardous chemicals post unsafe exposure and harm to the population, is the best option. We need to change our policy to cover all chemicals, both synthetic and natural under a regulatory umbrella and then decide specific chemicals that are absolutely necessary and the concentrations that are safe. Right now it feels like a lot of the best practices of chemical creation and usage is based off of guidelines, unless the chemical has previously shown harm to a population.
I think to make the best policy, scientists, not politicians, need to make decisions, not on fiscal stipulations, but on actual health implications. These regulations will be made by individuals that do not need to campaign or barter for a seat at the table, so will be able to make decisions unbiasedly and pragmatically. Additionally, regulations will be made off of scientific backing and not dollar signs, or lobbyists, and everyone will have to adhere to them.
I think that living in a democracy, people want as much individual freedom as they can have, and limit the regulation that is imparted by the government. But when the greater good is being taken advantage of, for the health and safety of the population, people need to be better and be held to higher standards. Because if those standards are there people will be able to innovate solutions and more natural alternatives for chemicals that have been banned. People are resilient and will solve the problem in front of them, we just need a voice and strict guidelines based off of science to get us there.
I think the ideal chemical policy needs two elements, it needs to be centralized and universal and it needs to be mandatory. I do not think that the mechanism we have now, which only seems to have restrictions for severely hazardous chemicals post unsafe exposure and harm to the population, is the best option. We need to change our policy to cover all chemicals, both synthetic and natural under a regulatory umbrella and then decide specific chemicals that are absolutely necessary and the concentrations that are safe. Right now it feels like a lot of the best practices of chemical creation and usage is based off of guidelines, unless the chemical has previously shown harm to a population.
I think to make the best policy, scientists, not politicians, need to make decisions, not on fiscal stipulations, but on actual health implications. These regulations will be made by individuals that do not need to campaign or barter for a seat at the table, so will be able to make decisions unbiasedly and pragmatically. Additionally, regulations will be made off of scientific backing and not dollar signs, or lobbyists, and everyone will have to adhere to them.
I think that living in a democracy, people want as much individual freedom as they can have, and limit the regulation that is imparted by the government. But when the greater good is being taken advantage of, for the health and safety of the population, people need to be better and be held to higher standards. Because if those standards are there people will be able to innovate solutions and more natural alternatives for chemicals that have been banned. People are resilient and will solve the problem in front of them, we just need a voice and strict guidelines based off of science to get us there.
Comments
Post a Comment