Safer Chemicals
could be LESS Expensive!

Safer alternatives to hazardous chemicals that are also cheaper could give employers an added incentive to keep harmful substances away from their employees and out of the workplace environment. A recent study published by the Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI) at the University of Massachusetts demonstrates that there are less-costly and nontoxic alternatives to five heavily used hazardous chemicals – lead, formaldehyde, perchloroethylene, hexavalent chromium and di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP). These chemicals are widely used in dry-cleaning, wire and cable manufacturing, metal finishing, healthcare, cosmetology and other industries.

TURI compared the five chemicals with approximately 100 alternatives within 16 different applications. For example, formaldehyde (a chemical known to cause cancer in humans, and used by beauty and barber shops as a sanitizer) was compared to two alternatives – ultra violet light cabinets and storing implements in a dry, disinfected, covered container without formaldehyde. In every application studied, at least one alternative was identified that was commercially available, was likely to meet the technical requirements of most users and was likely to have reduced environmental and occupational health and safety impacts. "The scientific assessment that TURI took on provides all of us – legislators, consumers and industry – with critical information that will lead us to selecting safer substitutions that makes sense for our individual situations," said Massachusetts state Senator Pamela Resor.

Study Supports Massachusetts Bill

The study was commissioned by the Commonwealth of Masschussetts, and was released just when legislation that would require mercury to be phased out of consumer products was in the process of being considered. According to Senator Resor, the bill would "reduce exposure to both the workers in industrial plants as well as to the general population."

"An Act for a Healthy Massachusetts: Safer Alternatives to Toxic Chemicals," co-sponsored by Sen. Steven Tolman and Rep. Jay Kaufman, would encourage companies to use safer alternatives to toxic chemicals whenever alternatives are available and feasible, and would also stimulate research on finding new technologies.

The bill explains that exposure to toxic substances could lead to several chronic diseases, such as asthma, autism, birth defects and cancers. Using the study as evidence, proponents of the bill are now hopeful that it will be passed, despite heavy opposition from some members of industry who claim there are currently no safer alternatives for some of the chemicals which they use.
However, not all representatives from industry oppose the bill. "The collaborative process accomplished so much more than a report. Because TURI worked with all impacted Massachusetts industries and other stakeholders, we now have a solid platform of research to create academic, industry and community partnerships in the pursuit of new technological processes for Massachusetts manufacturers," said David Wawer, CEO of the Massachusetts Chemistry & Technology Alliance.

Instead of banning chemicals immediately, the legislation requires the state's Department of Environmental Protection to determine whether some or all uses of these chemicals could be replaced with "feasible" alternatives. According to TURI, the Five Chemicals Alternatives Assessment Study does not draw conclusions or rank alternatives. However, the extensive information is available so that companies and consumers can use it as a basis to assess alternatives for their own particular application.

Click here to see the “Five Chemicals Alternatives Assessment Study” report.