We are all familiar with the social science concept of unintended consequences—outcomes that weren’t foreseen or intended. History is rife with examples of well-meaning intentions that somehow went awry. In the 19th century, Australia introduced rabbits into the country as means for providing an additional food supply for its indigenous people.
As any parent understands, you come to rely on certain adages or pronouncements when you want your children to understand your exasperation with their behavior. A favorite around the Collatz household over the years has been, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.” It has gotten to the point that I can begin that sentence and get an eye roll and completion of my mantra before the words are actually out of my mouth. If I said the same thing to our friends at the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), I wonder if I would get a similar response?
I'm going to go out the proverbial limb here and assume that, by the time this issue has printed, the U.S. Senate will have passed legislation to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). I know I have a reputation of being a glass-half-empty kind of guy—but not this time.
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEEHA) new website could create more confusion for the public at the expense of those doing business in California.
California regulators are at it again. In the name of providing transparency for consumers, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEEHA) may be on the brink of creating more confusion for the public―at the expense of those doing business in the state.
Anyone who has read even a few of my previous columns knows I have a cynical streak. I could blame it on my 30 years spent in Washington, D.C., but I suspect I’ve always been a “glass half empty” sort of guy. However, I have now seen that miracles can happen and I have to believe what took place in the Senate with the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) reform bill just before year’s end qualifies.
Most readers are familiar with the term “collateral damage.” It is generally described as a situation in which injury is inflicted on something other than an intended target.
By the time you read this column, the battle for Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) reform will be fully engaged. Battle lines will have been drawn, cosponsors for bills will have been recruited, and charges and counter charges will have been swapped back and forth in Senate committee hearings.
The Adhesive and Sealant Council’s (ASC) Regulatory Affairs Committee (RAC) recently held its annual “forecasting” conference call, during which we prioritize what are believed to be the biggest legislative and regulatory issues for the industry in the upcoming year.
Signs, signs, everywhere there’s signs / Blocking up the scenery, breaking up my mind / Do this, don’t do that, can’t you read the sign? —Five Man Electrical Band (1971)
While the easier approach might be to look the other way and let a handful of impacted manufacturers fight this battle alone, I'm not sure it would be a wise one.