U.S. law allows most manufacturers to use toxic materials in products without telling anyone. Only the food and drug industries are closely regulated for product safety, and even their labelling tells consumers just a fraction of the relevant information. For example, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires the disclosure of the presence of trans fat in a food only if a single serving size contains more than a half gram of total fats. In other words, a food can contain a half gram of trans fat and the label can still say “0 grams”. Even if unhealthy ingredients are listed, most Americans don’t know how they affect health. Other industries are worse; there are cosmetics on the market that contain lead (lipstick), mercury (eye drops), and placenta (hair conditioners).
In October, 2006, National Geographic ran a feature, "Chemicals Within Us - The Pollution Within", for which the magazine dropped $15,000 to run a "journalist-as-guinea pig" experiment. Mt. Sinai hospital sucked 14 vials of blood from reporter David Ewing Duncan to perform a comprehensive blood screen. The goal: to identify and quantify known pollutants in him. The results are an alarming chemical klaxon—we are polluting ourselves. And this pollution does not come only from the iconic factory smokestack. The article identifies dozens of household sources of toxic chemicals, from cosmetics to furniture to more obvious sources like pesticides and cleaners.
Science News, a weekly digest of news from dozens of scientific journals and conferences, has been reporting on similar studies of household pollutants (for example, search its website for “bisphenol-a” or “pfoa”.). There have been stories about non-stick coatings releasing fumes toxic enough to kill household pets and plastics used in baby bottles that disrupt fetal development and may induce diabetes.
WIRED magazine runs a single page feature each issue called “What’s Inside?”, profiling the contents of a consumer product. Since I began subscribing last spring, WIRED has profiled gasoline, whipped cream, shaving gel, E-Z Cheese, and several other mostly synthetic consumer products. WIRED’s satirical product labelling provides more than a list of ingredients, it quickly surveys their sources and health effects. FDA take note.
The skeptic can easily raise an eyebrow at websites with flamboyant titles like “Our Stolen Future” and “PVC: The Poison Plastic”, but National Geographic, Science News, WIRED?
The mainstream media paid attention last fall when American toy manufacturers voluntarily recalled children’s toys that contained lead, GHB (the date rape drug), and powdered asbestos. Why are these recalls voluntary? Why don’t manufacturers have to tell us what’s in children’s toys? Why are there no penalties for selling toxic products?
The U.S. government, in its own ponderous way, is finally beginning to acknowledge the possibility of a problem with our toxic lifestyle. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have begun releasing a series of reports on toxins in the American bloodstream. This National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals is a start. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is narrowly involved as well, with its Endocrine Disruptors Research Initiative.
Unfortunately for the public health, the chemical lobby is hard at work protecting the profitable interests of its member companies and their customers. The American Chemistry Council (ACC), for example, runs several websites denying or downplaying the dangers found in the scientific evidence, especially for consumer plastics. Some ACC funded websites include: the Phthalate Information Center, Bisphenol-A, PlasticsMythBuster, and PlasticsInfo.org.
Many of these health hazards are systemic to our political-economy, but there are ways that we as individuals can reduce our personal toxic load.
No comments:
Post a Comment