European Death Wish

Human lifespans in developed countries have been increasing 15 seconds every minute for the past 125 years, and they are increasing even faster in the developing countries – on average about 20 seconds every minute. This means that in Europe and America lifespans increase about one year over every four-year period. Why has this happened? In one word – chemistry.

Chemistry enables us to develop the compounds that cure most childhood diseases. Chemistry provides us with the disinfectants that destroy dangerous germs in our everyday lives, clean our wounds, and make modern surgery possible. Chemistry enables us to have the protective clothing and gear that shield us from many injuries in the workplace and on the athletic field. Chemistry gives us the pesticides that defend our crops and ourselves from insect-borne diseases. Chemistry has enabled pharmaceutical companies to develop the products that help protect us from cancer, heart disease and thousands of other ailments that affect an aging population. Without modern chemistry, most of us would be dead.

All chemicals, both natural and synthetic, have a downside. Too much of almost any of them can kill us or make us ill. Even the most basic chemicals that are necessary for life can also be very dangerous. We need just the right level of oxygen in our air to live. We need water, but the wrong quantities it can lead to dehydration or dilution of the body's essential elements.

Take a look at the list of ingredients on your multivitamin and mineral package. The tablet is a combination of a couple of dozen chemicals, any one of which in excessive quantities might kill you. However, the total absence of many of these chemicals will also lead to poor health and premature death.

Knowledgeable people have long understood the need for but also the dangers in chemical compounds, and mankind has made great strides in getting the balance right, as demonstrated by ever increasing lifespans. But now, the European Union is about to take the Europeans, and to a lesser extent the rest of the world, in a giant step backward. A proposal known as “REACH” – which stands for registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals – may soon become law in the European Union. In effect, the REACH proposal will require companies using any of more than 30,000 commonly used chemical compounds in their products (that daily protect and make our lives better) plus any new compounds they may develop to prove the chemical will do no harm in almost any quantity. The proposal is sheer lunacy from both a health and a safety point of view, and will be economically destructive not only to Europeans but to those who export to or import from Europe.

The argument is that perhaps as many as 4,500 lives could be saved each year if people were not exposed to chemical compounds in excessive quantities. The science behind this number is highly doubtful, but what should be obvious is hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives will be put in danger each year as a result of banning both highly desirable, and in fact necessary, chemical compounds of one sort or another. The proposed regulations will be extremely costly to business, arbitrary in their effect, and so onerous on small and medium-size businesses that many of them will have to withdraw from the market.

If the Europeans pass the regulation, in one stroke they will have increased their already disastrous unemployment rates, and denied themselves many products they need for safe and healthy lives. The only winners will be all of the new bureaucrats who will be hired to administer the impossible.

In one bow to economic reality, the REACH proponents have agreed to exempt certain natural chemicals, foods, cosmetics and pesticides – because they are regulated under other statues. However, many of these products will likely be affected, as their ingredients are regulated under REACH – some may be banned.

The Europeans have just been down a similar route. To try to prevent capital outflow – which is caused by excessive taxation and regulation in a number of the European states – they created the European Savings Directive. To get it passed and to mitigate the most economically destructive aspects of the proposal, they put in many loopholes. Now, the first year results are in, which show the Directive raised very little revenue, but greatly increased the administrative burden for the financial industry and did nothing to prevent capital outflow.

The good news is that more than 250 leaders and scholars from around the world (including many from the United States), representing both free market public policy organizations and taxpayer groups, met last week in Vienna at the largest ever European Resource Bank meeting. These scholars and political activists are working together to combat the economic and scientific know-nothings who dominate too much of the political discussion in Europe.

Let us hope, not only for the sake of Europe but for the global community, that their efforts will not be too little and too late.

This piece was originally published on July 13, 2006 in The Washington Times.

 
More on this topic:

EU Environmentalism: So What? 11 October 2005

Europe’s REACH: Costly for the World; Suicidal for Europe, 9 November 2005

EU Opts for Strict Environmentalism, 11 November 2005

Will Bad EU Policies REACH America? 19 November 2005

@ Richard, chemically yours

Extensive research has prooved the presence of a wide range of man made substances that chemically resemble 'the' feminine hormone.

These substances are being found in a growing number of lakes and rivers of industrialised countries, and have a negative effect on birth - rates.

As such, a positive effect we can add to the numerous blessings of the chemical industry.

Furthermore, mr. Rahn states

'These scholars and political activists (including many from the US) are working together to combat the economic and scientific know-nothings who dominate too much of the political discussion in Europe.'

Understanding economics, does not mean to accept all its consequences. Or to blind yourself free willingly to a wealth of non - economical issues.

Furthermore i would like to ask mr. Rahn: why science? To produce and use very refined ... walking sticks for the cripple?

@Jari

You refer to anti-conception hormones which are a comfort and consumer medication, but in support of Mr. Rahn we can look at the disaster of the ban of DDT, supported by green and red do-gooders. No death has ever been certified from normal field use of DDT, but it was banned. Today Africa pays the price by millions of malaria victims. Malaria was practically eradicated by DDT. The scientific and medical community cannot find a politician who dares supporting the reintroduction of DDT in mosquito-infested areas.

I am not very well informed

I am not very well informed on the backgrounds of the ban on DDT, and the near eradication it would have caused on malaria. However, on the statement that no death has ever been certified from normal field use of DDT, i want to add the following considerations:

First, to even consider a normal field use of DDT, research is required on the different health aspects.

Second, the effects of DDT do not differ much from other pesticides, with one great difference: the molecules of DDT hardly degenerate in time. Continiuos exposure leeds to accumulation of DDT in the fat - layers of organisms, until a lethal dose is reached.

Third, the reason for not having any casualties so far, might very well be a result of the ban on DDT several decades ago.

Fourth, because of the research on DDT the industry has been forced to develop less harmfull and even more effective pesticides.

I believe mr. Rahn tends to neglect the economic and intellectual benefits of industries that perform the research required. It will result in an employment boost for workers in those sectors.

You call that freedom??

'(..) What should be obvious is hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives will be put in danger each year as a result of banning both highly desirable, and in fact necessary, chemical compounds of one sort or another.'

For the sake of freedom and strength, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT