The American Chemistry Council (ACC), formerly known as the Manufacturing Chemists' Association[1] (at its founding in 1872[2]) and then as the Chemical Manufacturers' Association[3] (from 1978[4] until 2000[5]), is an industry trade association for American chemical companies, based in Washington, D.C.
Contents |
The mission of the American Chemistry Council is to promote the interests of companies engaged in the business of chemistry. The trade group represents US chemical companies as well as the plastics and chlorine industries, formerly known as the American Plastics Council, the Center for the Polyurethanes Industry and the Chlorine Chemistry Council.
The ACC implemented the Responsible Care program in 1988. At least 52 countries have implemented this initiative. It is managed at a global level by the International Council of Chemical Associations.
Some critics believe that the Responsible Care program is intended to help the industry avoid regulation by imposing its own safety and environmental regulations, and to improve its public image in the wake of the 1984 Bhopal disaster. Defenders of the Responsible Care standard claim the program has improved safety and that its standards are higher than some OSHA regulations.
The ACC has a political action committee that gives money to members of the Congress of the United States.
The ACC's latest initiative is the $35 million "essential2" public relations campaign. "essential2" attempts to improve the industry's image by emphasizing the importance of chemical industry products — especially plastics — to everyday life, and by using the term "American Chemistry" rather than "chemical industry".
Environmentalists and those concerned about the health effects of chemicals in the environment traditionally oppose the ACC's initiatives. They view campaigns like "essential2" as efforts to distract public attention away from products and practices that they view as harmful and dangerous. Among the most vocal opponents are groups such as Pesticide Action Network and Environmental Working Group.
The American Chemistry Council is involved in and shaping public policy discussions when necessary to defend its members' special needs from the effects of legislation. This has proven particularly true when the public interest points to changes in industry practice that might be detrimental to the relative financial success of members. By combining funds from the collective chemical industry as a whole and then using this money to steer public debate, the American Chemistry Council has repeatedly demonstrated its efficiency at obtaining outcomes favorable for the special interests of the chemical industry.
Sometime in 2008, the ACC launched a campaign[6] to oppose California SB1713 — a bill to ban bisphenol A statewide[7] — including bulk postal mailings in July and August encouraging California citizens to demand opposition of their representing legislators.
The ACC currently is heavily engaged in fighting governmental restrictions and bans on plastic bags. In July 2008, the Seattle City Council voted to impose an additional 20 cent fee on each plastic bag purchased from stores by shoppers as a convenience for transportation of goods. This effort was suspended until a referendum could be held in 2009, allowing voters a chance to weigh in on the issue of whether they should continue to be encouraged to support industry by purchasing plastic bags without considering disposal costs. During the period leading up to the referendum vote the American Chemistry Council stepped into this local affair, ultimately spending some $1.4 million on their successful effort to thwart the proposed system of fully accounting for the cost of plastic bags. Since this victory it has been impossible to ascertain if the ACC has insisted that plastic bag manufacturers cease charging for plastic bags sold to Seattle businesses. Thus it is not possible to determine if the ACC's implied campaign promise of "free plastic bags for shoppers" as a reward for voting down the referendum was valid. In 2010 the ACC was quoted by the New York Times in opposition to a California bill to outlaw plastic bags, claiming that new law "amounts to a $1 billion tax added to [Californian's] grocery bills."[8]