|
Lobbying the peak body of the developed nations the
OECD
by Theresa Gordon
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),
initiated, in May 1990, activity focusing on reducing risks of five
industrial chemicals: brominated flame retardants, cadmium, methylene
chloride, mercury and lead. Lead was given the priority and the first
draft of the lead risk reduction document was produced in November 1990.
Elizabeth O'Brien of The LEAD Group, and myself, from the Lakes
Environmental Action Defense (No-LEAD) in Newcastle, NSW, obtained the
copy of the second draft document on lead risk reduction, dated 21st May
1991, as part of our attempt to arm ourselves with the most up to date
and authoritative material available. This document was made of the hard
hitting statements which inspire lead activists to fight on; statements
such as "Lead is a poison that affects virtually every system in
the body, with no physiological value." This document did what it
was intended to do. It made clear statements about the real threat of
lead, both to humans and to the environment. It was suggested an
International co-operative strategy could be developed, one similar to
the Montreal Protocol for CFC’s. This strategy could include banning
those uses of lead which present unreasonable health risks, a tax on
virgin lead, promotion of recycling and safe disposal practices,
education campaigns about product risks, promotion of substitution where
possible and development of substitution and cleaner production
technologies.
You may be thinking "At last - after hundreds of years of
denying leads' toxicity, this responsible generation is going to bite
the bullet" (lead substitute of course).
Well sorry, but you would be wrong. The International Lead Zinc
Research Organization Inc. (ILZRO) (how very academic and without
pecuniary interest these industry bodies can sound) were quick to object
to the draft ILZRO released statements such as, "The concept of
product substitution figured too prominently and needed to be more in
balance with other risk reduction measures." My local industry
person informed me that "The document was rejected, as no country
was willing to suffer the drop in standard of living that would result
from the recommendations in this document." It reminded me of the
pesticide companies stating that the attack on DDT was a Communist plot
to destroy the economy of the US.
As one could imagine, much lobbying and pressure would have been
coming from the lead industry since that second Draft Document. Is it
cynical of me to feel this lobbying may have paid off? The third draft,
dated November 1992, proffered only a couple of quotable quotes.
Firstly, "... because the phasing out of leaded gasoline has lead
to dramatic decreases in atmospheric lead levels it is clearly the most
important single measure for lead risk reduction.” Secondly,
"Annual ILZRO expenditures for the conduct of lead health-related
research will typically range between, $400,000 and $600,000.” This
second statement reminded Elizabeth of a story related by toxicologist
Herbert Needleman in his book "Human Lead, Exposure" 1992,
which said in part: "Embedded in this LIA. (Lead Industries
Association) analysis was major objection both to the EPA [Environmental
Protection Agency] conclusions about the health effects of lead and the
damage from lead to automobile engines. A comment from one EPA staffer
reflected the Agency's reaction :'It just goes to show that for the
right amount of money you can make the numbers say anything'."
The fourth and final draft dated February 1993, is a very much
watered down affair. Gone are the statements such as "lead is a
natural toxicant which affects a broad spectrum of species and persists
in the environment", and "Lead is considered a particularly
hazardous ecotoxicant", and also "The effects of lead exposure
on plants include inhibited plant growth, reduced photosynthesis, and
reduced water absorption; and all of these effects may result in plant
death and reproductive failure." In the latest draft of the
document, these statements have been replaced with, "In general,
ecological effects of lead are limited".
Gone is the section which states that phasing out lead in petrol is
the most effective way of reducing air and blood lead levels. Gone is the idea of a strong, mandatory, international,
cooperative approach. Considerable anger and frustration over these
changes, and the many others, prompted me to write the following letter
to Dr Geoff Thompson of CEPA (Commonwealth Environment Protection
Authority). Dr Thompson was the leader of the Australian Delegation to
the 19th and 20th Joint Meetings of the OECD.
|
"May 1993
Dear Sir,
The new chapter 6, headed "Summary and
Considerations", is to me the final insult to the original
integrity of this document. As affected Community members of a
lead smelting town [Boolaroo], we no longer feel we have any
faith in the intentions of the OECD to protect the health of the
people. As we have watched, this Document has deteriorated to
the point where it only satisfies the interests of a hazardous
industry, one whose very existence forces it's employees and the
co-existing community to sacrifice their health and potential.
"I am willing to say only that, if this
document wished to remain true to the charter of the OECD, there
should have been no reason to change any part of the original
"Summary and Conclusions" .
"It is obvious why it was changed, and it
is obvious that all meaningful and positive international
aspects of risk reduction are not being allowed to remain.
"I believe that industry's advantage with
money and lobbying has distorted this document. We, the
unfunded, unassisted and affected Community, have suffered
intolerable disadvantages during the process of contributing to
this document. I will be taking my complaint to a higher
authority within the OECD body.
Yours Sincerely, Theresa Gordon."
|
The intentions of the OECD were originally sound, but what happened
along the way has been a very sad "missed opportunity". It is
not my wish to discourage "little people" from trying. On the
contrary, it is time for us all to continue to speak up and motivate
ourselves towards change. It is up to us to support the scientists and
researchers who made those earlier statements, which implored the world
to take a longer look at lead and its destructive nature.
We do have one last chance to influence Australia's input to
appropriate risk reduction actions to be recommended by the OECD to its
members. Once again we will be making strong statements that support
strategies leading to tightening of standards, and restrictions on lead
production and uses, and also the promotion of recycling, but we are not
expecting any miracles.
|
