A/HRC/30/40 14. In some countries, businesses are not required to produce any information to determine the safety of a chemical before production by workers and use in products sold to consumers, such as toys and furniture. For 85 per cent of tens of thousands of new substances, regulators in one country did not receive any toxicity data from the chemical manufacturer when they were notified of the intent to manufacture the new substance. 17 15. Loopholes in laws intended to prevent the use of hazardous substances in food have been exploited by businesses, adding newly developed chemical additives to food without government oversight or public access to the information about the identity or safety of the substance. For illustration, businesses in the United States of America have “found their chemicals safe for use in food despite potentially serious allergic reactions, interactions with common drugs, or proposed uses much greater than company-established safe doses”.18 In addition, pesticides have been used before required information is available to completely assess their safety for workers, local communities and consumers. 19 16. Despite ongoing exposure of children and adults to hazardous substances in cosmetics, food, toys, furniture, electronics, building materials and other common, everyday items, information provided to consumers on the hazardous substances present in these items “covers too few substances and does not reach everyone who needs information to make active choices and assess and handle risks”.20 17. Excessive and unjustified claims of confidentiality have kept information about the risks of hazardous substances secret, and “far in excess of what is needed to protect trade secrets”.21 Approximately 15,000 of over 24,000 new substances developed since 1982 cannot be meaningfully identified by the public as having known or unknown risks. 22 18. In the case of the tragedy in Bhopal, India, where thousands lost their lives and tens of thousands have been born into a toxic environment, Union Carbide Corporation (acquired by the Dow Chemical Company) admitted that one highly hazardous gas was released, but did not provide information about other pollutants released. This information is necessary to understand the magnitude of impacts due to the industrial accident and to ensure effective remedy. 19. Furthermore, settlement agreements for alleged harm with broad confidentiality provisions can prevent timely action to avoid additional harm and hinder access to an effective remedy for other victims, particularly those who do not have the resources for legal counsel. 17 18 19 20 21 22 6 See United States Environment Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General, Evaluation report (17 February 2010), p. 6, available from www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2010/20100217-10-P-0066.pdf. Natural Resources Defense Council, “Generally recognized as secret: chemicals added to food in the United States” (12 May 2014), available from www.nrdc.org/food/safety-loophole-for-chemicals-infood.asp. United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), “Pesticides: EPA should take steps to improve its oversight of conditional registrations” (August 2013), available from www.gao.gov/assets/660/656825.pdf. Swedish Chemical Agency, “Chemical substances in articles” (2011), p. 14, available from www.kemi.se/Documents/Publikationer/Trycksaker/Rapporter/Rapport3-11-Kemikalier-i-varor.pdf. Sheila Ferguson and others, “Influence of CBI requirements on TSCA implementation” (March 1992), p. 20, available from www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-00540074; see also GAO, “Observations on the Toxic Substances Control Act and EPA implementation” (13 June 2013), available from www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-696T. Earthjustice, “Petition for rulemaking to establish time limits for confidentiality claims applicable to information received under Toxic Substances Control Act” (2014), available from http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/TSCA-CBI-Sunset-Petition.pdf.