Mr. Kristof is an admirable humanitarian, but not an expert at evaluating scientific evidence. This op-ed needs quantification: How much are we ingesting? What is the threshold for harm? How much safety margin below that threshold is appropriate?
23
Every day your body contaminates itself with breakdown chemicals from its own metabolism. Just remember Charlie Smith, who died at 114. He said that he drank a pint of whisky and smoked two packs of cigarettes a day since he was 13. He quit smoking at 112. So there! Or, as George Burns told me when he was in his 90s, while lighting up a big cigar, "Kid, my doctor tells me not to do this, they are bad for me. I buried three doctors."
3
The article failed to mention one worrying possible effect of BPAs which disrupt hormone balance. Physicians (I am one) have noticed a large increase in sexual dysphoric conditions - boys believing they are girls and want sex change, same for girls. We are uncertain why this is happening, and the consequences are huge in terms of the scope of great unhappiness in childhood, and of the request for sexual reassignment surgery later. Some hypothesise that the developing brain of the foetus, which is sensitive to male or female hormones, has been influenced by the disruption of intrauterine hormones. This has been shown to occur in observations of fish and animals in the wild who live in the waters near chemical factories where BPA are very high. It sounds like science fiction, if only it was just this...
54
Anthropogenic contamination is not a vice unique to modernity. It arguably started c. 10,000 BC, when Homo sapiens began farming.
The pseudo estrogens discussed in this article exist naturally in many of our foods.
Isoflavones in dairy: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/12.07/11-dairy.html
Isoflavones in soy/legumes: http://www.isoflavones.info/isoflavones-content.php
Theoretically, anything we touch, anything we swallow, anything we breathe, is a potential toxin.
Modernity exacerbates the problem because:
(1) increased anthropogenic interference increases exposure
(2) increased lifespan and technological advancement increase exposure
(3) a potential toxin actualizes when lifespan exceeds the toxin's latency period.
The pseudo estrogens discussed in this article exist naturally in many of our foods.
Isoflavones in dairy: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/12.07/11-dairy.html
Isoflavones in soy/legumes: http://www.isoflavones.info/isoflavones-content.php
Theoretically, anything we touch, anything we swallow, anything we breathe, is a potential toxin.
Modernity exacerbates the problem because:
(1) increased anthropogenic interference increases exposure
(2) increased lifespan and technological advancement increase exposure
(3) a potential toxin actualizes when lifespan exceeds the toxin's latency period.
5
Profits from unsafe products are used to purchase political protection until the harms can no longer be denied. But, by then the profits have all been secured. Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.
16
Thank you Nick Kristof for shining light on this important issue! It is shocking that there are no regulations to protect us from toxic chemicals and that the "reform" basically keeps the status quo and will remove important state protections and penalize health care providers treating chemically impacted people.
9
Hey I hear the Romans just found a metal that can be formed to make a pipe.
Imagine how much easier it will be now that we can bring water into the home.
Imagine how much easier it will be now that we can bring water into the home.
12
Several times a year my neighbors, many of them MD's, spray their yards with toxic pesticides, even though we all have well water. The smell of the chemicals is everywhere. Then they let their kids (and pets) play on the grass. When will this shortsighted and dangerous practice end?
26
One insane practice advocated by EPA and USDA is to help industries get rid of their hazardous chemicals by letting them pipe it into sewage treatment plants, which create sewage sludge (biosolids) that is spread on agricultural land. Biosolids is a toxic brew of EDCs, fluoride, superbugs, prions, lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury, pesticides, flame retardants, and every chemical mentioned in this article and in the comments. We should protect our arable land for future generations and not be using our precious soil as a repository of the nation's hazardous waste. See www.sludgefacts.org.
27
Rachael Carson warned us decades ago.
32
I am very willing to concede that, had the white man never managed to get a toehold on the western hemisphere, the ancestors of the peoples present when Columbus in the Indies, Capt. John Smith and company at Jamestown, Myles Standish and his fellow colonists at Plymouth, Ponce de Leon and his conquistador cohorts in Florida, the marvelous technologically blessed and advanced world we know today would not exist.
Animal skins might well still be the primary source of apparel; arrows, spears and rocks the means of food procurement; nomadic existence a necessity of survival. Short lifespans would be the norm; disease a continuing mystery; superstition the dominant characteristic of religion (some things are universal across societies and time). Confrontations with neighboring communities would come and go, with varying degrees of lethality and comity.
All in all, in my estimation, small prices to pay for clean air and water, resources beyond measure, the night sky a wonder to behold from the ocean's edge to the highest peak.
Without modern chemistry we would be forced to live in those dire circumstances.
We are so lucky.
Animal skins might well still be the primary source of apparel; arrows, spears and rocks the means of food procurement; nomadic existence a necessity of survival. Short lifespans would be the norm; disease a continuing mystery; superstition the dominant characteristic of religion (some things are universal across societies and time). Confrontations with neighboring communities would come and go, with varying degrees of lethality and comity.
All in all, in my estimation, small prices to pay for clean air and water, resources beyond measure, the night sky a wonder to behold from the ocean's edge to the highest peak.
Without modern chemistry we would be forced to live in those dire circumstances.
We are so lucky.
6
But it needn't be a choice between 'chemistry' and 'no chemistry.'
All that is required is some testing before chemicals are added to food or other products.
All that is required is some testing before chemicals are added to food or other products.
19
Yes. So far.
1
We once did a study asking students to log for one week every perceived exposure to chemicals(food ingredients, lipstick, gasoline fumes, lawn spray, PAM cooking spray...and so on). The results were frightening in simply their volume of exposures.
Even more frightening: there were NO studies looking at the interaction of exposure to multiple exposures of these everyday chemicals. All had some risks, but the risks of several different chemical exposures over an hour, day, week, year...no data, no studies.
15 years later, it's still the Great DuPont-Dow-Koch Brothers Wild West Show.
The EPA's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), has been wildly successful in controlling toxic chemical releases into the environment in the sectors of the economy it covers and for the chemicals listed therein by the EPA as toxic. Not so curiously given industry pressures on Democratic and Republican-controlled congresses and administrations, the TRI does not cover toxic chemical releases "into product." That would be an excellent starting point: listed on each product the toxic chemicals used to produce it and not contained otherwise in TRI releases. It would also broaden the focus of the TRI from releases in to the environment to releases into "human scrubbers," that is the hundreds of millions of hourly exposures we as ordinary citizens have to contend with.
Even more frightening: there were NO studies looking at the interaction of exposure to multiple exposures of these everyday chemicals. All had some risks, but the risks of several different chemical exposures over an hour, day, week, year...no data, no studies.
15 years later, it's still the Great DuPont-Dow-Koch Brothers Wild West Show.
The EPA's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), has been wildly successful in controlling toxic chemical releases into the environment in the sectors of the economy it covers and for the chemicals listed therein by the EPA as toxic. Not so curiously given industry pressures on Democratic and Republican-controlled congresses and administrations, the TRI does not cover toxic chemical releases "into product." That would be an excellent starting point: listed on each product the toxic chemicals used to produce it and not contained otherwise in TRI releases. It would also broaden the focus of the TRI from releases in to the environment to releases into "human scrubbers," that is the hundreds of millions of hourly exposures we as ordinary citizens have to contend with.
16
Along with human health, there are environmental risks. Endocrine disrupters were noticed early by their effects on alligators at central Florida's Lake Apopka. Recent research shows that a widely used sunscreen ingredient, in tiny quantities, kills corals.
13
A point missed in this fine column is that we are poisoning this entire planet and every living thing on it. Life is an infinitely interconnected web and we have allowed ourselves the arrogance to interfere in it with the manic abandon of a small child. We are clearly lacking adequate adulthood to make the changes that we must in order to survive our own foolishness.
37
I've been listening to this conversation about chemicals in our products and in the environment at large since at least the mid-1960's. Big chem is a secular magisterium that will not easily brook the type of meddling which will be required to get them to end their perverse practices.
19
Fluoride was definitively identified as an endocrine disruptor in a 2006 report by the U.S. National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC). This report states:
In summary, evidence of several types indicates that fluoride affects normal endocrine function or response; the effects of the fluoride-induced changes vary in degree and kind in different individuals. Fluoride is therefore an endocrine disruptor in the broad sense of altering normal endocrine function or response, although probably not in the sense of mimicking a normal hormone. The mechanisms of action remain to be worked out and appear to include both direct and indirect mechanisms, for example, direct stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by interference with second messenger function, indirect stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by effects on things such as calcium balance, and inhibition of peripheral enzymes that are necessary for activation of the normal hormone. (page 266)
The endocrine system is a collection of glands in the body that secrete hormones–chemical signals that regulate the function of numerous cells and organs in the body. As discussed in the NRC report, the following four glands can each be affected by fluoride exposure: http://fluoridealert.org/issues/health/endocrine/
In summary, evidence of several types indicates that fluoride affects normal endocrine function or response; the effects of the fluoride-induced changes vary in degree and kind in different individuals. Fluoride is therefore an endocrine disruptor in the broad sense of altering normal endocrine function or response, although probably not in the sense of mimicking a normal hormone. The mechanisms of action remain to be worked out and appear to include both direct and indirect mechanisms, for example, direct stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by interference with second messenger function, indirect stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by effects on things such as calcium balance, and inhibition of peripheral enzymes that are necessary for activation of the normal hormone. (page 266)
The endocrine system is a collection of glands in the body that secrete hormones–chemical signals that regulate the function of numerous cells and organs in the body. As discussed in the NRC report, the following four glands can each be affected by fluoride exposure: http://fluoridealert.org/issues/health/endocrine/
12
Fluoride is being actively promoted by Vermont's Department of Health. Why?
3
A --
Because it's far more beneficial than detrimental from a public health perspective according to the vast weight of scientific opinion.
Because it's far more beneficial than detrimental from a public health perspective according to the vast weight of scientific opinion.
12
Mr. Kristoff you say, " try to eat organic, reduce the use of plastics, touch cash register receipts as little as possible, try to avoid flame-retardant couches and consult the consumer guides at ewg.org." Do you realize that most people have no clue how badly OUR food chain is contaminated by chemicals? People do not take time to read articles like this valuable one and if we check out food labels they are usually incoherent with scientific jargon. The vast majority of Americans think it is the job of OUR United States governments at all levels to protect us and many, foolishly, think they are doing so. Meantime, people like me get sicker and sicker with some unknown conditions where it is nearly impossible to find the real cause because of corporate misinformation. The real answer may be for people to form employee-owned and/or cooperative gardens and meat growing facilities and grow OUR own uncontaminated food - like we did before BIG corporate farming and runaway corporate greed for profit at any cost.
16
For as long as I remember some have been complaining about chemical toxins. Yet, during that same time life expectancy has grown.
8
Due to advances in medical technology and new drugs...
5
The negative cumulative effects of toxins has likely been outweighed by the positive effect of other factors in that time period. That's hardly an argument for failing to study and regulate toxins.
18
It's all about greed and money.
Maybe there could be more to life.
Maybe there could be more to life.
6
Ahh the joys of capitalism.
8
Vote for Sanders and end this government by the corporation, for the corporation and of the corporation that as a country we've fought against on numerous occasions.
To be sure, if you insert instead of corporation the word British tyranny during the Revolution, aristocracy during Jackson populism, feudal plantation system during Lincoln, The Trusts during TR, economic royalists when FDR was president, you will know what I am getting at.
If we don't end this plutocracy and an elected kleptocracy then we only have ourselves to blame.
To be sure, if you insert instead of corporation the word British tyranny during the Revolution, aristocracy during Jackson populism, feudal plantation system during Lincoln, The Trusts during TR, economic royalists when FDR was president, you will know what I am getting at.
If we don't end this plutocracy and an elected kleptocracy then we only have ourselves to blame.
13
You're absolutely right. Since Sanders will bankrupt the country if he's elected, there won't be any more corporations left, or anything else either.
1
Want to protect yourselves and those you love AND exert economic pressure on companies using untested, unregulated, toxic chemicals in products? Contact:
-Women's Voices for the Earth - Creating a Toxic-Free Future http://www.womensvoices.org/
-Moms Clean Air Force: Fighting Air Pollution & Climate www.momscleanairforce.org/
-Women's Voices for the Earth - Creating a Toxic-Free Future http://www.womensvoices.org/
-Moms Clean Air Force: Fighting Air Pollution & Climate www.momscleanairforce.org/
6
Nowhere do I see numbers indicating probability of adverse effects. It is not enough to say ABC causes XYZ. If we are to make an informed decision about the personal use or government approval of the use of ABC we need numbers. Also, cause and effect, and concurrent causes, should be part of the discussion.
NYT, please raise raise the level of this discussion.
NYT, please raise raise the level of this discussion.
11
Thank you...this issue needs long term focus and exploration.
Contrary to a few comments, credible research is possible to address these issues. Articles comparing cancer rates of immigrant populations to their country of origin have found indicators that cancer and other disabling diseases rise sharply in the USA after 10, 20 years. Yes identifying causes and solutions would be complex. Chemicals infuse our air, food, home and business environments, etc. And the same time, it is difficult to imagine our American-way-of-life and quality-of-life without them. However to continue to turn a blind eye is irresponsible for all of us.
As noted, both corporate and nonprofit interest have managed this discussion away from their marketing and fundraising. Sat the same time, the issues have been addressed internally for decades.
Moving forward, hopefully the New York Times and others will continue to bring these issues out of the shadows. This is a pertinent issue for local to national elections for the next 20 years.
Contrary to a few comments, credible research is possible to address these issues. Articles comparing cancer rates of immigrant populations to their country of origin have found indicators that cancer and other disabling diseases rise sharply in the USA after 10, 20 years. Yes identifying causes and solutions would be complex. Chemicals infuse our air, food, home and business environments, etc. And the same time, it is difficult to imagine our American-way-of-life and quality-of-life without them. However to continue to turn a blind eye is irresponsible for all of us.
As noted, both corporate and nonprofit interest have managed this discussion away from their marketing and fundraising. Sat the same time, the issues have been addressed internally for decades.
Moving forward, hopefully the New York Times and others will continue to bring these issues out of the shadows. This is a pertinent issue for local to national elections for the next 20 years.
4
How about the air in large drugstores? Walgreens, Rite Aid, all of them have the same distinctive and peculiar, not to mention unpleasant smell. Why? What's in it? Is it harming those who breathe it? Someone should study it.
9
most large buildings use recirculating systems which both heat and cool the air but, as you may have noticed, usually no windows which actually open. It's economics. The systems vary, but there are numerous filters in the heating/cooling apparatus, the ductwork, and the diffusers. The composition of these filters is suspect; they probably contain materials similar to what has been found in carpets or wall covering which 'outgas'. It's called 'interior air pollution'. You are wise to distrust the air; regulations are frowned upon, as they would cut into profits so the next quarterly report becomes less rosy, a few investors pull out, the CEO receives a smaller bonus ... Get the point? don't go there, or by way of protest wear a gas mask !
9
I am a Physician. I am an immigrant, a naturalized citizen. I was introduced to a lot of chemicals for cleaning purposes to give every surface a spooky shine. But when I settled down and developed social roots, I was amazed at how many of my friends were infertile, undergoing multiple surgeries, in vitro fertilizations, breast cancer, prostate cancer etc. etc. And being a physician, I was amazed at the small occurrence rates of cancers and diseases ( I am not talking about infections and infestations ) from where I came from. My first thought was the lack of diagnoses at early stages due to lack of sophisticated equipment and screening protocols in place. But there seemed a definite direct relationship between cleanliness and cleaning agents and disease occurences. Not being a researcher, I am glad these studies are ongoing to correlate cause and effect. Political gravitas should be added before products come into the market. And for those already there, they should come with warnings like those on cigarettes. Of course, this will be a long tug-of-war.
21
The endocrine affecting agent that is the most egregious is fluosilicic acid which is intentionally added into the public water supply to elevate fluoride ion levels in the blood of consumers. Fluoride crosses the placental barrier and is present in the blood of the fetus of mothers who consume fluoride drugged water. At blood concentrations typically achieved, the ion elevates both calcitonin and parathyroid hormone by incorporating abnormally and permanently into bone, causing formation of bone of poor quality (NRC, 2006). The neurologic developmental effects of fluoride exposure are becoming increasingly delineated. The U.S. has a dismal track record on premature births and we have a high incidence of arthritis and bone surgeries, so whole body fluoride dosing of U.S. citizens is an absurd practice, standing alone as the most broadly disseminated endocrine altering agent in history. Its ingestion has not been demonstrated to reduce caries (Cochrane review) while it inhibits thyroid function (NRC, 2006). "Fluoridation" is not controversial. It is simply a false practice.
17
How can you be right when the overwhelming majority of scientists, after decades of extensive research, agree that fluoridation is a very net-positive public health practice? Something about the tone of this comment (eg, "drugged water") reminds me of vaccine denialism. You say that "fluoridation is not controversial" but just plain bad. I agree that it's not controversial, but that's because the vast scientific consensus is that it is good.
10
I assume you haven't read the science. The "overwhelming" science shows that fluoride is a toxic poison that causes great harm to the brain, bones, heart, and other parts of the human body. Propagandists led by CDC are promoting harm when they promote fluoridation of water supplies.
3
Fluoride is naturally present in many waters. It doesn't seem to cause harm, except when at excessive levels it causes mottling of teeth, a cosmetic problem.
3
Government of the dollar and corporations, by the dollar and corporations, for the dollar and corporations.
We are getting exactly what we have elected, most particularly in congress. Profit trumps all.
We are getting exactly what we have elected, most particularly in congress. Profit trumps all.
20
Until we have campaign finance reform that effectively eliminates the influence of large donors we will not have a government responsive to the needs of the public. This is at the heart of the problem identified in this article. If this problem is ever solved we at least have a chance of electing officials who will consider the interests of their constituents first.
25
And we need a SCOTUS that overturns Citizens United.
13
So what else is new? It has had to be obvious for the longest time that that food additives were the cause of the increase in the rates of cancer, on top of pesticides and herbicides.The thing is that the government will do nothing because both the House and the Senate or in the pockets of every major industry. All it comes down the the fact that we have one of the most corrupt governments on earth.
19
While "fat-bashing" has become an almost socially-acceptable form of abuse and discrimination, and obesity is attributed (even by many in the medical profession) to laziness and a lack of willpower and, there is ample scientific evidence that chemicals in our environment (many designed to protect us!) are major contributors to the obesity epidemic in the US.
Instead of focusing on diet and lifestyle alone, look at the prevalence of plastics, canned foods, and flame retardants in the US compared to other countries with lower levels of obesity and infertility. There is a strong, direct correlation.
Instead of focusing on diet and lifestyle alone, look at the prevalence of plastics, canned foods, and flame retardants in the US compared to other countries with lower levels of obesity and infertility. There is a strong, direct correlation.
14
Chronic toxicity is often difficult or impossible to study, but is likely a significant problem due to low-level exposures to various organic compounds that can enter and persist in the body. It is inconceivable that at least some of the chemists and medical personnel involved in exposing us to chemicals would not have been aware of the potential for chronic toxicity, but business decisions were probably the priority. The first thing that can be done is to eliminate non-essential exposures, for example to synthetic dyes and fragrances that are included in products primarily for psychological reasons, and also for things like microbeads and nanoparticles that will be taken up from the environment by plants and animals including humans. More research on chronic toxicity should also be a priority.
12
solution: stop eating
1
solution: stop breathing
1
??
Chemicals enter our bodies through many routes.
Chemicals enter our bodies through many routes.
3
Really, is that what you took out of the article? This is about more than just food and no, you don't have to stop eating.
1
Wow, the various gov't protection agencies, etc...are NOT looking out for the consumers (citizens) well being? Im shocked! (Not)
Link this articles information with the recent "protective" ruling on genetically modified salmon, and its all as plain as the noses on all our faces. Consumers don't get to know, much less choose what they can be, and/or will be exposed to. No matter how closely one reads labels, our dear, dear, Gov't employees (many of whom beg us to vote for them) have decided that an informed consumer, a self-protecting consumer is anathema to how we do everyday business. Buyer beware and be informed, has been replaced with a blanket "Buyer be damned!" mentality, because its business that rules the roost, not the citizen-consumer. Business interests far outweigh the citizens rights to know, and heaven forbid, act to protect themselves. (unless its to buy a gun)
"How dare you want to know the what and where of the products you buy, use, and consume! That's just anti-business, that's an invasion of a corporations privacy! And that makes you, citizen-consumer Anti-American! Now shut-up, and ingest, or otherwise slather yourself with that chemical cocktail that we deem safe for all parties! We are Big Brother, and we will decide whats safe.
"Now before you go, please delete that no-tracking add-on on your devices so we can more easily watch and track all that you do. Thank you, and don't forget to vote in the next Lobbyist-run election cycle!"
Link this articles information with the recent "protective" ruling on genetically modified salmon, and its all as plain as the noses on all our faces. Consumers don't get to know, much less choose what they can be, and/or will be exposed to. No matter how closely one reads labels, our dear, dear, Gov't employees (many of whom beg us to vote for them) have decided that an informed consumer, a self-protecting consumer is anathema to how we do everyday business. Buyer beware and be informed, has been replaced with a blanket "Buyer be damned!" mentality, because its business that rules the roost, not the citizen-consumer. Business interests far outweigh the citizens rights to know, and heaven forbid, act to protect themselves. (unless its to buy a gun)
"How dare you want to know the what and where of the products you buy, use, and consume! That's just anti-business, that's an invasion of a corporations privacy! And that makes you, citizen-consumer Anti-American! Now shut-up, and ingest, or otherwise slather yourself with that chemical cocktail that we deem safe for all parties! We are Big Brother, and we will decide whats safe.
"Now before you go, please delete that no-tracking add-on on your devices so we can more easily watch and track all that you do. Thank you, and don't forget to vote in the next Lobbyist-run election cycle!"
19
Many of the regulatory agencies are now "captive", having been infiltrated and filled with insiders from the industries they are supposed to oversee for compliance. At the same time Congress has shackled many by stipulating tlimits on activity. For example, NRA lobbyists and their bought Congress has prevented the CDC and NIH from studying gun violence as a public health issue.
Also, Republican administrations have taken appointed positions within agencies and converted the positions to civil service after filling them with business friendly people.
Strapped for budget, straight jacketed by Congressional limits, infiltrated by people opposed to the mission of the regulatory agency, they become toothless an ineffective. Then the same politicians point to these agencies and gripe about how they are not effective.
Quite a con.
Also, Republican administrations have taken appointed positions within agencies and converted the positions to civil service after filling them with business friendly people.
Strapped for budget, straight jacketed by Congressional limits, infiltrated by people opposed to the mission of the regulatory agency, they become toothless an ineffective. Then the same politicians point to these agencies and gripe about how they are not effective.
Quite a con.
28
So who's looking at the long term effects of nuclear radiation? Younger people who didn't live through the cold war (the fifties and sixties) may be only roughly cognizant of the 200 plus tests of nuclear bombs in the atmosphere worldwide. Another 1400 underground. Nowadays it's not even mentioned. Really? It's no problem?
9
The real reason CEOs make so much? Consciences don't come cheap.
12
And then you have to return them because of selective defects.
Mr. Kristoff touches on an important largely unregulated area of increasing import to human health: human exposure to chemicals. As he alludes to the EU has a vastly different approach to chemicals that may impact human health in contrast to the US where we wait for untoward human effects before looking into a given chemical.
Here is the most convincing argument I have come across that involves considering the effect of these untested chemical exposures on human populations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6KoMAbz1Bw
I deal with US children in every clinic I attend with elevated blood lead levels and behavior and developmental problems resulting from exposure to chemicals in a large US city.
Here is the most convincing argument I have come across that involves considering the effect of these untested chemical exposures on human populations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6KoMAbz1Bw
I deal with US children in every clinic I attend with elevated blood lead levels and behavior and developmental problems resulting from exposure to chemicals in a large US city.
12
I have been in the Farm Seed Biz the past 40 years marketing Conventional, Organic and GMO crops. I have seen the wholesale changes 1st hand. From Atrazine and Teflon and Basagran weed killers to 90% of crops sprayed with Round Up PLUS fungicides sprayed for bugs once the crop is up.
The worst is Wheat. This crop especially in Canada, but Ukraine and MT as well as flax, barley, canola, triticale, and many other grains are Sprayed with Round Up to desiccate the crop just days prior to harvest to make combining more efficient and fast. You don't think we ingest Round Up with the grains we consume?
Organic does not allow this protocol period, enforces crop rotations, increases soil biota, does not allow pesticide/herbicide/fungicide/insecticide usage.
Don't rely on Gubmint or Big Corporations to save you or keep chemicals safe. Start with the premise that chemicals are not safe and do your own homework.
The worst is Wheat. This crop especially in Canada, but Ukraine and MT as well as flax, barley, canola, triticale, and many other grains are Sprayed with Round Up to desiccate the crop just days prior to harvest to make combining more efficient and fast. You don't think we ingest Round Up with the grains we consume?
Organic does not allow this protocol period, enforces crop rotations, increases soil biota, does not allow pesticide/herbicide/fungicide/insecticide usage.
Don't rely on Gubmint or Big Corporations to save you or keep chemicals safe. Start with the premise that chemicals are not safe and do your own homework.
28
Mr. Kristof your heart is always in the right place, but if I read your articles on a regular basis I would not leave my bed in the morning.
4
True! Such an important voice, but also Debbie Downer on steroids. Like a columnist version of the movie "Affliction" -- if you're depressed when you start it, you might be looking for a ledge by the end.
2
I remember as a child of the fifties applying agricultural chemicals, bare chested and bare foot. Loved those ortho weed killers and fertilizers.
In my fifties I came down with lymphoma.
I used to cut through the pediatric oncology area at NIH while I was a patient-lab rat there. The babes there don't have a clue as to why they are sick.
Do that once and you will see how wrong our chemical policy is.
But I am in favor of feeding genetically modified food to lobbyists, chemical company boards, and their families.
We can't use apes, and those folks have assured us it is safe.
In my fifties I came down with lymphoma.
I used to cut through the pediatric oncology area at NIH while I was a patient-lab rat there. The babes there don't have a clue as to why they are sick.
Do that once and you will see how wrong our chemical policy is.
But I am in favor of feeding genetically modified food to lobbyists, chemical company boards, and their families.
We can't use apes, and those folks have assured us it is safe.
24
I remember as a kid in the fifties, of playing in the 'fog' of the DDT truck that came through the neighborhood every few weeks in the summer. And then we wonder why cancer is so prevalent. We don't have to wonder any more.
7
All politicians should be forced to wear uniforms, like NASCAR drivers. You know, the ones with patches on them so we know who their corporate sponsors are. And when these representatives with whom we trust our health leave politics they are often hired or sit on the boards of the very corporations we elected them to protect us against.
Money talks, but it also can keep things secret.
Money talks, but it also can keep things secret.
29
The chemical industry says "show me the human evidence." Human evidence is nearly impossible to produce because for decades anyone who has suffered from the effects of chemical exposure has, as a condition of the damages awarded to them signed a confidentiality agreement. The human evidence is everywhere if anyone is really interested in uncovering it.
Confidentiality agreements are unethical and immoral when the information kept "secret", would or could have a negative impact on human health and or the environment. #PoisonedAndLeftForDead
Confidentiality agreements are unethical and immoral when the information kept "secret", would or could have a negative impact on human health and or the environment. #PoisonedAndLeftForDead
16
This is an uncharacteristically (for your newspaper) sensationalistic article which lacks point or substance.
Perhaps it would be more informative to readers to narrow the scope and to provide supporting facts and guidance on specific chemicals, products and thus companies to avoid.
Perhaps it would be more informative to readers to narrow the scope and to provide supporting facts and guidance on specific chemicals, products and thus companies to avoid.
5
It's not an article but rather an opinion piece. One of the main points here is that if we wait for perfect evidence, it's already too late.
7
Get your head out of the sand and do your own research - start here with EWG: http://www.ewg.org/research/nailed
Don't expect others to tell you what to do in a short news article. It would take a book to adequately cover the extent of the damage that has been done to our environment and our bodies by the chemical industry. And there are some - go read one before you criticize a journalist for trying to spread the word.
Don't expect others to tell you what to do in a short news article. It would take a book to adequately cover the extent of the damage that has been done to our environment and our bodies by the chemical industry. And there are some - go read one before you criticize a journalist for trying to spread the word.
7
The Fox is guarding the hen house. In an article, a few weeks ago, the point was made that the testing process has been taken over by the Chemical Corps by implanting Industry scientists into the process and their use of a computer generated testing program to reach conclusions favorable to the Chemical Industry. Although the initial development of this program was promising in it`s ability to speed up the testing it has been turned on it`s head by controlling input. Most test thinking starts by taking cause and effect studies and see what conclusion is reached, the Industry controlled thinking starts with the desired conclusion and adjusts the cause and effect data fed to the program to reach that desired conclusion. It`s money first and our safety be damned. Profits without Responsibility.
7
ps I just found the article mentioned. It is on Bill Moyers Health and Science section and originally appeared at In These Times. I found it very informative.
http://billmoyers.com/2015/11/23/why-the-united-states-leaves-deadly-che...
http://billmoyers.com/2015/11/23/why-the-united-states-leaves-deadly-che...
Uncontrolled capitalism is what's exposing us toxic chemicals and, today, unfortunately only capitalism can save us. The Ralph Nader consumer-crusader approach aimed at passing legislation and regulating industries is a pipe dream. Industry wised up after Nader, and with its think-tank hit men, its PR offensives, its lawyers, its campaign contributions and its lobbyists, it is untouchable.
Instead, we have to harness the power of the Internet to spread the alarm directly to consumers. The web absolutely loves health-related scare stories. They're fillers everywhere. The Internet is home to countless entrepreneurial advisors whose job it is to popularize the bad news in scientific studies - the worse the better - and deluge users with tips on how to stay safe.
It's because of this that I can't open a menu without seeing the letters "GF" prominently displayed. The same goes for products on grocery store shelves that practically yell to tell us they are hormone-free or vegan or, the old standby, organic.
If the Web can create a groundswell of opposition to toxic chemicals by popularizing the information in your column and others like it, it is likely that producers will wake up to the existence of a new market and move to fill the demand.
If we can make the public as alarmed about toxic receipts as they are about gluten, for example, sooner or later profit-seeking manufacturers will begin printing "toxin free" on the cash register rolls they sell to retailers.
Instead, we have to harness the power of the Internet to spread the alarm directly to consumers. The web absolutely loves health-related scare stories. They're fillers everywhere. The Internet is home to countless entrepreneurial advisors whose job it is to popularize the bad news in scientific studies - the worse the better - and deluge users with tips on how to stay safe.
It's because of this that I can't open a menu without seeing the letters "GF" prominently displayed. The same goes for products on grocery store shelves that practically yell to tell us they are hormone-free or vegan or, the old standby, organic.
If the Web can create a groundswell of opposition to toxic chemicals by popularizing the information in your column and others like it, it is likely that producers will wake up to the existence of a new market and move to fill the demand.
If we can make the public as alarmed about toxic receipts as they are about gluten, for example, sooner or later profit-seeking manufacturers will begin printing "toxin free" on the cash register rolls they sell to retailers.
8
Municipalities should stop adding fluoride to water supplies.
7
Useless comment. You forgot to say why.
2
Because it is a toxic poison.
1
Thank you for this article! It has been a mystery to me why the drastic increase in the number of people affected by cancer has been all but ignored in regard to cause and effect. The medical profession directs its attention and resources to trying to undo the damage done but basically turns its back on addressing why they have seen such a rapid increase in cases cancer in the past 50 years. Why would it not be a priority to understand why this horrific wave has washed over us all? Who among us has not been affected directly by cancer or knows someone or several someones who has? And then there are our governing bodies, made up of individuals who also have had to have personal experience with cancer, they too cannot be blind to this epidemic but why the inaction? It mystifies me.
8
"Why the inaction.? I think you know the answer--follow the money!
6
It's also worth wondering why foundations and non-profits such as The American Cancer Society and Komen (breast cancer nonprofit) also seem to focus exclusively on treating cancer rather than examining the cause and seeking to reduce toxic exposures.
Are nonprofit organizations that claim to "fight cancer" or "find a cure" also being lobbied by Big Chemical?
Are nonprofit organizations that claim to "fight cancer" or "find a cure" also being lobbied by Big Chemical?
8
KV
You seem to confuse cause and effect. There is a huge difference in the medical field between treatment and research.
Should those that are now being diagnosed with cancer not be treated because how and why they came down with that life threatening illness has not been extensively researched yet?
While the cause of different cancers is being researched by, among others, the National Institute of Health, those focusing exclusively on treating cancer are saving many thousands of lives, including one of my cousin's right now.
You seem to confuse cause and effect. There is a huge difference in the medical field between treatment and research.
Should those that are now being diagnosed with cancer not be treated because how and why they came down with that life threatening illness has not been extensively researched yet?
While the cause of different cancers is being researched by, among others, the National Institute of Health, those focusing exclusively on treating cancer are saving many thousands of lives, including one of my cousin's right now.
1
To quote a line from The Graduate, "I just want to say one word to you. Just one word," Monsanto.
6
And many people all over the U.S. are breathing toxic air.
4
I knew something was wrong --- thank you for the wonderful article.
3
A well known company had this slogan for years, "Better living through chemistry." They stopped using that phrase some time ago for obvious reasons.
The problem of personally escaping harmful chemicals in ones life is not solvable in practical terms. Miners of all sorts and workers in the various chemical industries have been on the front lines fighting chemical hazards for centuries
The users of lead utensils for food and drink many centuries ago were among the early victims of ignorance of the deadly consequences of chemistry in human existence. This ignorance in chemistry continues despite an enormous increase in knowledge.
The problem of personally escaping harmful chemicals in ones life is not solvable in practical terms. Miners of all sorts and workers in the various chemical industries have been on the front lines fighting chemical hazards for centuries
The users of lead utensils for food and drink many centuries ago were among the early victims of ignorance of the deadly consequences of chemistry in human existence. This ignorance in chemistry continues despite an enormous increase in knowledge.
8
"Better living through chemistry" was likely dropped after several high-profile incidents and a series of groups that sought to utterly demonize the industry.
But the slogan is still true: all the light-weight, sturdy plastics that make numerous devices possible, smaller and smaller semiconductors for smaller, more powerful, and more energy efficient computers and phones, paints, refrigerants, powerful medical imaging techniques and testing, etc...
Do some of those things have environmental consequences as well? Probably. But it doesn't mean we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater when crafting sound public policy.
But the slogan is still true: all the light-weight, sturdy plastics that make numerous devices possible, smaller and smaller semiconductors for smaller, more powerful, and more energy efficient computers and phones, paints, refrigerants, powerful medical imaging techniques and testing, etc...
Do some of those things have environmental consequences as well? Probably. But it doesn't mean we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater when crafting sound public policy.
6
70% of our food contain MSG : yeast extract , natural flavors , autolized soy protein , spices , carregennan etc ... All are excititoxins .. Kill brain cells and lead to mental disorders .
Plastic containers have BPA: disrupt hormonal balance .. Leading to cancers .
GMO s : disrupt gut absorption and alter our DNA
Over 3000 chemicals have made it in our food supply
So eat organic , grass fed beef , fresh !
Plastic containers have BPA: disrupt hormonal balance .. Leading to cancers .
GMO s : disrupt gut absorption and alter our DNA
Over 3000 chemicals have made it in our food supply
So eat organic , grass fed beef , fresh !
4
Banishing the most common cleaning products in one's home allows individuals to significantly deplete the toxic soup of chemicals they live in on a daily basis. Castille soap, white vinegar, bleach, and baking soda replace virtually every commercial cleaning product one uses.
You can't get rid of the dangerous chemicals used in your furniture, carpets, and walls, but you can decline to add layer after layer of new chemicals on top of them.
You can't get rid of the dangerous chemicals used in your furniture, carpets, and walls, but you can decline to add layer after layer of new chemicals on top of them.
14
I have made those changes, and my house and clothing are still clean and fresh-smelling.
Quick tip:
Dump the Downey in favor of distilled white vinegar. It softens and suppresses static. Plus keeps your washer free of mineral build-up. Don't worry -- you don't smell like a salad. There is no scent when the clothes are dry.
Quick tip:
Dump the Downey in favor of distilled white vinegar. It softens and suppresses static. Plus keeps your washer free of mineral build-up. Don't worry -- you don't smell like a salad. There is no scent when the clothes are dry.
2
"The gynecology federation’s focus is on endocrine disrupters, chemicals that imitate sex hormones and often confuse the body."...What are your thoughts on the widespread use of birth control chemicals, which already contaminate our drinking water? Please, do not assume that I am anti-whatever...
4
Net-net, I would guess, less bad for the environment than the reproductive rates that would result from withdrawing hormonal contraception from use.
2
So what are the products?
5
As listed in the article: pesticides, plastics, shampoos and cosmetics, cash register receipts, food can linings, and flame retardants (Google: "Firemaster 550"). Because of their widespread use, they are detected in household dust and breast milk, also marine animals and throughout the food chain. Think about where flame retardants are used: carpets, upholstered furniture (sofas, mattresses), children's pajamas. Babies are particularly at risk, as these chemicals accumulate and disrupt development of the endocrine system and can contribute (based on animal studies) to lower IQ, earlier puberty, infertility, increased fat deposition, and cancer. Recent studies suggest that offspring of exposed individuals may also be at risk--even if we act to eliminate these chemicals today, we may be dealing with their effects for generations to come.
The comparisons with tobacco are appropriate with respect to the political responses to the risks. However, tobacco doesn't have the same widespread impacts due to environmental contamination and accumulation.
For more information: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/endocrine/
The comparisons with tobacco are appropriate with respect to the political responses to the risks. However, tobacco doesn't have the same widespread impacts due to environmental contamination and accumulation.
For more information: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/endocrine/
4
Another particularly dangerous product not mentioned in the article is non-stick cookingpans/ utensil, which, among other things, release toxic fumes. http://www.ewg.org/research/healthy-home-tips/tip-6-skip-non-stick-avoid...
Parabens (one of the bigger offenders in shampoos) can also be found in everything from makeup to sunscreen, Neosporin, and lubricant... thankfully there are plenty of alternatives (natural brands, if you go searching, for each of these). EWG tends to be a fairly solid resource for determining what types of products are & are not considered hazardous, particularly by the stricter standards of Canada/ Europe.
Parabens (one of the bigger offenders in shampoos) can also be found in everything from makeup to sunscreen, Neosporin, and lubricant... thankfully there are plenty of alternatives (natural brands, if you go searching, for each of these). EWG tends to be a fairly solid resource for determining what types of products are & are not considered hazardous, particularly by the stricter standards of Canada/ Europe.
1
I'd like to learn more about what chemicals have actually been "linked" to cancers, given the lack of testing, and especially those that are "endocrine disrupters." The photo shows protesters in Paris with a list, but Mr. Kristof doesn't tell us what "common household products" contain them so I could avoid them if possible. As the primary shopper in my household, that would be the most important action I could take. So, other than the fear of "low T" and now my recent diagnosis of "prediabetes" I'm left in the dark. As an educator, this is just a plea for more information. Thanks.
71
To Paul: The Environmental Working Group has information you might find useful. Here is a link to their site:
http://www.ewg.org/?gclid=CIGZ4LCGtskCFUMXHwodk-8Oiw
Their "Dirty Dozen" and "Clean Fifteen" lists the most pesticide ridden and pesticide free produce. There is also a Dirty Dozen Endocrine Disruptors list and much more info.
http://www.ewg.org/?gclid=CIGZ4LCGtskCFUMXHwodk-8Oiw
Their "Dirty Dozen" and "Clean Fifteen" lists the most pesticide ridden and pesticide free produce. There is also a Dirty Dozen Endocrine Disruptors list and much more info.
7
Paul, please check out the Environmental Working Group's website for good information: http://www.ewg.org/research/dirty-dozen-list-endocrine-disruptors
2
Paul, he provides links tom ewg.org, where you can find the answer to that question...the sad truth is that there is not space (in this and several more articles like it) to list them all.
1
Congrats on the essay. This scientific study , which will appear in the Fall issue of of the academic journal Perspective on Politics, from Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin I. Page of Northwestern University concludes we are officially an oligarchy. Former President Jimmy Carter recently made the same point on Oprah.
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/15/1292085/-DINO-New-Scientific-S...
As the oligarchy tightens its grip on the society, the Chemical industry will be free to maim and kill more people and sweep it all under the rug. The want small government so they can damage people’s health even more recklessly without accountability.
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/15/1292085/-DINO-New-Scientific-S...
As the oligarchy tightens its grip on the society, the Chemical industry will be free to maim and kill more people and sweep it all under the rug. The want small government so they can damage people’s health even more recklessly without accountability.
9
You neglect the reality that many water treatment plants do not remove such chemicals or pharmaceuticals. So unless you have additional water purifying systems in-house, the chemicals are in the water you drink, cook with and bath in. And I am sure such residential consumer systems are not adequate to remove all chemical pollutants.
5
A better parallel than tobacco is lead in indoor paint. Most European countries already banned it in the 1920s, but because of industry lobbying, it wasn't banned in the US until the 1970s (see "Brush with Death: A Social History of Lead Poisoning" by Christian Warren, https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/brush-death. Although lead toxicity has been known since antiquity, it wasn't banned from the water supply (lead pipes), gasoline (tetraethyl lead), food, drink, paint and toys until relatively recently. And while we're at it, why don't we ban High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS), the main cause of the obesity and diabetics epidemic, and a completely superfluous natural sugar replacement invented to support the corn lobby. HFCS delenda est!
13
High fructose corn syrup is more or less just sugar. In the US, it has replaced sugar, whose price is artificially high, so lots of our sugar candy is now made in Mexico or Argentina.
Until fairly recently, the corn syrup and sugar industries collaborated in maintaining sugar price and import controls. Then Sugar sued Corn Syrup, alleging false advertising claims that corn syrup is "just as healthy as sugar." That suit was settled about a week ago. No word on details.
I see no reason to prefer one sweetener over the other (or honey, or perhaps even maple syrup, which tastes great, but whose price is more or less controlled by the Canadian industry).
Until fairly recently, the corn syrup and sugar industries collaborated in maintaining sugar price and import controls. Then Sugar sued Corn Syrup, alleging false advertising claims that corn syrup is "just as healthy as sugar." That suit was settled about a week ago. No word on details.
I see no reason to prefer one sweetener over the other (or honey, or perhaps even maple syrup, which tastes great, but whose price is more or less controlled by the Canadian industry).
1
How about adding in fracking fluids and the "Halliburton Loophole" ?
This is a huge source of unannounced endocrine disrupters.
Does any state government (except maybe NY: thank you Gov Cuomo) care?
This is a huge source of unannounced endocrine disrupters.
Does any state government (except maybe NY: thank you Gov Cuomo) care?
7
Only when chemical company executives are tried, found guilty and sentenced to long prison terms for homicide will the public have a hope of being protected from these poisons. Their enablers in Congress should also go to prison for decades. This will never happen as long as greed driven gangster capitalism controls our government.
14
Oh well.. As kids we played w broken thermometer mercury, wads of asbestos, washed our greasy hands in gasoline and drank from a roadside ditch ... Turned out okay.
4
There you have it ... childhood exposure that proves none of these chemicals are a problem. It all seems so easy to figure out. Mr. Bakewell could work for the chemical industry.
1
Clearly not.
Not really OK....cancer is expected to rise 65% from now until 2030 with aging Boomer population.
1
I have to admit that it is very hard to raise the "Hue and Cry" over environmental health factors when in all actuallity were living longer,healthier and more productive lives than ever before.
3
Living longer yes, healthier is another question. Obesity, Diabetes, heart disease, many cancers and the whole spectrum of autism are at all time highs to name but a few diseases. If we could live longer and truly be healthy for all those years it seems like a reasonable goal. It's nearly impossible to be chemical free in our world but my choice when I can is to expose myself to fewer of them.
5
'HUMANS HAVE FOUND or made 50 million different chemicals here on Earth, the vast majority over the last few decades.'
http://www.wired.com/2009/09/humans-have-made-found-or-used-over-50-mill...
Even if every year one thousand of these 50 million chemicals were robustly and rigorously tested in the USA on non-human animals and on humans, it would be fifty thousand years before all currently known chemicals could be tested.
The business of the USA has always been business. For all you religious folks, think of endocrine disrupters as God's punishment today on white Americans for the genocide of the First People, the enslavement of millions of Africans, and generally for being a materialistic, narcissistic and pleasure-obsessed culture.
Want to avoid divine wrath if you can? Then for handling the check out receipts wear thin cotton gloves at all times. (Make sure you don't mix your fabrics though). For more brownie points, don't eat forbidden foods. Always check your labels and, better still, don't purchase any processed foods. Refuse to work on the Sabbath.
Your natural body aroma trumpets who you are. Don't fight it. Embrace it. Welcome it! Abandon all those deceptive artifices that would conceal your person's presence or try to make it more pleasantly odiferous. Be proud that you now smell of the real you.
http://www.wired.com/2009/09/humans-have-made-found-or-used-over-50-mill...
Even if every year one thousand of these 50 million chemicals were robustly and rigorously tested in the USA on non-human animals and on humans, it would be fifty thousand years before all currently known chemicals could be tested.
The business of the USA has always been business. For all you religious folks, think of endocrine disrupters as God's punishment today on white Americans for the genocide of the First People, the enslavement of millions of Africans, and generally for being a materialistic, narcissistic and pleasure-obsessed culture.
Want to avoid divine wrath if you can? Then for handling the check out receipts wear thin cotton gloves at all times. (Make sure you don't mix your fabrics though). For more brownie points, don't eat forbidden foods. Always check your labels and, better still, don't purchase any processed foods. Refuse to work on the Sabbath.
Your natural body aroma trumpets who you are. Don't fight it. Embrace it. Welcome it! Abandon all those deceptive artifices that would conceal your person's presence or try to make it more pleasantly odiferous. Be proud that you now smell of the real you.
4
Where are the self-proclaimed "Right to Life" people on this issue? Apparently poisoning the un-born is OK.
6
Let's not forget when, during the debates, Hillary took great umbrage at Bernie's suggestion that corporate interests, in this case Wall Street, got what they paid for.
I guess we're to believe that money in politics has no effect whatsoever.
I guess we're to believe that money in politics has no effect whatsoever.
2
If the current epidemics of obesity and diabetes cannot convince Congress to act then we are all lost. It is an outrage that 35 countries are healthier than the USA.
Does it make sense that a new car it is tested for safety by the government, but chemical companies can all do their own tests.
Reminds me of the woman who kept chickens as pets. She used a light bulb as a heater and when it burned out she replaced it. Unknown to her the replacement was teflon coated and killed all her chickens. These of course are declared safe for humans.
Does it make sense that a new car it is tested for safety by the government, but chemical companies can all do their own tests.
Reminds me of the woman who kept chickens as pets. She used a light bulb as a heater and when it burned out she replaced it. Unknown to her the replacement was teflon coated and killed all her chickens. These of course are declared safe for humans.
5
What, Congress might listen to actual scientists and aggrieved citizens rather than their cash benefactors? Dream on. Elect scientifically enlightened Congresspersons? Dream on. While a lot of us will tell a survey "America is on the wrong path," few of us will do what's necessary for a course correction.
5
I urge everyone to read the NY Times story- from 2011- "Hitting the Bottle" by Dominique Browningmay. She describes how plastics companies -feeling the heat from consumers about BPA - started advertising their wares as BPA free- what they didn't tell you - was that they swapped it for BPS - a different endocrine disrupter.
Members of the Endocrine Society have been issuing warnings about endocrine disrupters for years...but it is like talking into the wind. Sadly this issue effects those who don't have time to read the paper, or do the research or shop at whole foods.
The NY TImes has been covering this issue for quite some time now. Thank you to Mr. Kristoff for once again writing about it.
Members of the Endocrine Society have been issuing warnings about endocrine disrupters for years...but it is like talking into the wind. Sadly this issue effects those who don't have time to read the paper, or do the research or shop at whole foods.
The NY TImes has been covering this issue for quite some time now. Thank you to Mr. Kristoff for once again writing about it.
10
It makes one wonder how much damage we are doing with drinking all of that overpriced water that comes prepackaged im plastic bottles. Just another corporate move to fatten the bottom line, while increasing the consumers bottoms and depleting their pocketbooks.
Is it okay to buy a Newspaper? Remember Newspaper Print!
The US, it's got the best government money can buy.
If this industry doesn't want any regulation, why not give them that. Except make senior staff and board members personally liable for any and all deaths and injuries that they cause.
If this industry doesn't want any regulation, why not give them that. Except make senior staff and board members personally liable for any and all deaths and injuries that they cause.
3
Fluoride, an endocrine disruptor, is STILL addded to the drinking water of about 2/3 of Americans. It causes hypothyroidism, among other things. The CDC still promotes it vigorously, using taxpayer dollars. There have never been safety studies done on fluoride. And there is a huge body of literature describing the harms it causes. It's a hazardous waste that can't be dumped in the ocean or rivers, but cities PAY to put it in our water. We are paying to poison ourselves and our children. When will it stop?
7
As an American living in Europe, I understand there are over 500 chemicals often used in USA food "products" that are illegal here. Red 40 as one example. It is in things that are not even red! GMO (pestiside full) high fructose corn syrup in e v e r y t h i n g . Plastic packaging rampant. Food should not be made in a factory! An apple a day...
6
Every time I travel to Europe, even though I eat more and exercise about the same, I seem to lose weight. Could it be that more of the food is natural without added chemicals? That is why I am carefully monitoring what I eat now and working on avoiding most items with added chemicals. It does take time and knowledge, but me and my family are worth it.
4
Europe is light years ahead of us in weighing protection of the public over short-term corporate profit.
1
Another huge source of unregulated toxins is the laundry and dryer sheet industry. I was forced to investigate this when both myself and pets became ill--suffering deadly diseases from unvented dryer fumes coming into our apartment from the laundry room below. Sadly, even after having the EPA there many times and the fire department--nothing was ever done and it continues.
4
We spend billions each year on military budgets to "Protect America", what if the emphasis was actually to "Protect Americans", the actual people themselves and their health and lives.
185
Unfortunately there is no money to be made "protecting Americans."
1
Great point! We often talk about our 'security' and by that we usually mean the 'defense' budget. But are we secure if we aren't working or competing effectively with other nations? Are we secure if we're diabetic, obese, if two thirds of 18 year olds don't even qualify for the military today? Are we secure if we're broke? If our economy is struggling? If we're not healthy?
How do we define 'security'?
How do we define 'security'?
1
NO ESCAPE So, Nick, we're all trapped in a witche's brew of toxin that will affect us profoundly. It sounds quite hopeless. And depressing. Some people have the luxury of trying to seek out nontoxic alternatives, but most do not. If politicians are truly concerned about containing the cost of medical care, then they must move to control the toxins in our environment, which will result in a lifelong need for medical intervention.
And Rachel Carson's Silent Spring will have a sequel. I don't know who'll write it. But I do know the title: The Silent Earth.
And Rachel Carson's Silent Spring will have a sequel. I don't know who'll write it. But I do know the title: The Silent Earth.
58
It is worth mentioning that alternatives (at least non-food alternatives) aren't much more expensive and are frequently cheaper than chemical-laden products. I live on a tight grad student budget but have made it work. Organic shampoo, etc. (bought in bulk once a year) is cheaper than anything but dollar store alternatives, castile soap and vinegar clean without making me nauseous (although there are pre-made alternative brands of cleaners that are safe), and a one-time purchase of pyrex and stainless steel pans to replace non-stick and plastic (entire kitchen re-outfitted for under $50) help limit exposure while cooking. That having been said, a few individuals trying to protect themselves won't solve the much larger problem, but it's better than nothing.
1
Two things: (1) Perhaps it's because Kristof in his last paragraph refers to eating organic foods, but the focus among commenters on food as the main source of toxic chemical exposure shows a low of ignorance on the subject. By far, most of the chemicals we are exposed to come through other means, simply breathing the air, for instance. We humans dump trillions of pounds of chemicals into the planet's ecosystem every year; you won't avoid them just by eating organic. (2) The focus of Kristof's concern about chemicals is solely placed on consequences for humans at a time when species extinction is widespread and animal and plant species globally, along with our oceans, are suffering the worst consequences of chemical poisons. This human-centered approach is part of the problem because we are not separate from the planet's web of life; what happens to it is happening to us.
7
Thank you for this column.
1
Oh good - now let's elect a "Free Market, less regulation" Republican for President. Then we can just dispense entirely with ingredient listings, scientific research and even the feeble steps now being made to keep us healthy.
3
These comments are always amusing. Who's been in power the last seven years?
1
Right, vaccines are dangerous and the end of the world is close.
Please, don't write about something you have no ideas about and are not willing or able to truly investigate.
Please, don't write about something you have no ideas about and are not willing or able to truly investigate.
5
Unlike the people who claimed vaccines are dangerous, endocrine disrupting chemicals have been studied for years and the warnings are being issued by reputable organizations. I encourage you to read the studies.
2
i'm cynical-Profits trump
"Europe is moving toward testing chemicals before they go on the market, but the United States is a laggard because of the power of the chemical lobby".
Imagine that, actually testing these new chemicals for toxicity before industrial mass-production saturates virtually everything in the store.
Toxic register receipts?? Good grief.
And we wonder why everyone gets cancer these days.
Somehow I doubt Big Pharma has any trouble at all with Big Chem & Big Ag making everybody sick.
Imagine that, actually testing these new chemicals for toxicity before industrial mass-production saturates virtually everything in the store.
Toxic register receipts?? Good grief.
And we wonder why everyone gets cancer these days.
Somehow I doubt Big Pharma has any trouble at all with Big Chem & Big Ag making everybody sick.
3
If TPP the Trans-Pacific Partnership passes in congress by early Feb.
any attempt we make to regulate these toxic elements in our
products will be totally undermined. Yet the NY Times does
not discuss this bill even though Obama announced it was
signed and ready for review by Congress now. Activists around the world have opposed the TPP, warning it will benefit corporations at the expense of health, the environment, free speech and labor rights. Congress now has 90 days to review theTPP before President Obama can ask for an up-or-down vote. How could foreign corporations attack domestic health, environmental and financial protections that local companies have to follow? The TPP would give foreign firms special privileges, including the ability to challenge new policies because they frustrated the corporations' "expectations" for profit.
would grant foreign corporations extraordinary new powers to attack the laws we rely on for a clean environment, essential services, and healthy communities. Foreign corporations would be empowered to bypass domestic courts and directly "sue" the U.S. government before a tribunal of private lawyers that sits outside of any domestic legal system.
WAKE UP. OPPOSE THIS BILL.
any attempt we make to regulate these toxic elements in our
products will be totally undermined. Yet the NY Times does
not discuss this bill even though Obama announced it was
signed and ready for review by Congress now. Activists around the world have opposed the TPP, warning it will benefit corporations at the expense of health, the environment, free speech and labor rights. Congress now has 90 days to review theTPP before President Obama can ask for an up-or-down vote. How could foreign corporations attack domestic health, environmental and financial protections that local companies have to follow? The TPP would give foreign firms special privileges, including the ability to challenge new policies because they frustrated the corporations' "expectations" for profit.
would grant foreign corporations extraordinary new powers to attack the laws we rely on for a clean environment, essential services, and healthy communities. Foreign corporations would be empowered to bypass domestic courts and directly "sue" the U.S. government before a tribunal of private lawyers that sits outside of any domestic legal system.
WAKE UP. OPPOSE THIS BILL.
8
I do not pretend to have the wisdom to weigh the difficult trade-offs that are NOT mentioned in this article. For example, how many lives are saved by flame-retardant clothes and furniture? How much improvement in quality of life and health is there because nourishing food is cheap and plentiful? Again, I do not myself know how to balance these considerations, but they do need to be part of the conversation.
5
The answer to your first question is: nowadays, virtually none. Flame retardants began to be widely used in the 1970s because of the number of home fires caused by smokers falling asleep with lighted cigarettes. So couches, pajamas and other nightwear, as well as carpeting, were infused with chemicals. (See the current documentary, "Stink!") The irony was that, when fire did erupt regardless, the fumes from the released chemicals proved eminently more toxic than normal smoke.
With the enormous decline in smoking, these kinds of fires are now extremely rare, but the home-furnishings industry and sleepwear manufacturers continue to use the chemicals because the chemicals industry pays our politicians to legally require them. We need to tell manufacturers we will no longer purchase their products if they refuse to get rid of these unnecessary and toxic additions.
With the enormous decline in smoking, these kinds of fires are now extremely rare, but the home-furnishings industry and sleepwear manufacturers continue to use the chemicals because the chemicals industry pays our politicians to legally require them. We need to tell manufacturers we will no longer purchase their products if they refuse to get rid of these unnecessary and toxic additions.
4
The chemical industry wants human studies which may take 25 years. We already have the proof right here in the good old USA. I would like to ask all you baby boomers, like me, when you were a child, how many children were your age, living in a close knit neighborhood. Every family within a stones throw from your home had 2 to 4 kids. In my neighborhood I can count 25 within a stones throw. How many of them had a birth defect? Zero. When I include the neighborhood little league of 100's of boys there was 1. He was born with a short left arm. Now the question I would like to propose to the boomers is how many of your grandchildren, nieces and nephews, cousins and now second cousins have a child with one of these new childhood diseases like autism or ADD? I am willing to bet, like mine, there are more then a few.
The human study has been going on for years and I say that the US is the perfect lab. We grew up with modern plumbing, clean water supplies, trash collection and sanitation services, good food supply, excellent medical care, and many other advantages that other countries did not and most still do not have to keep the study pure. I think we can tell the chemical companies that the study is finished now let's investigate the results.
The human study has been going on for years and I say that the US is the perfect lab. We grew up with modern plumbing, clean water supplies, trash collection and sanitation services, good food supply, excellent medical care, and many other advantages that other countries did not and most still do not have to keep the study pure. I think we can tell the chemical companies that the study is finished now let's investigate the results.
7
I will tell you my laymen's understanding of cancer in the form of a story.
And how our biology is already very imperfect and flawed naturally.
So, anything that can go wrong will. Which makes me wonder if how
we are "made" has much more impact than what we "eat".
We are born like a perfect sheet of music. I like think of Ode to Joy.
Then our cells copy themselves. So put the sheet of music on the copy
machine. The first ten copies are perfect, that's us at ten years old. Then copying from each subsequent copy we start to see small flaws. The page is a little off center. So, now the copies are less perfect. These are wrinkles.
What our bodies do to try and fix any error cells by eating them. We have T-Helper cells that travel around marking the mistake cells and other cells that eat them. As we age both all these systems are slower, and worse, we are producing more and more mistake cells, no matter what you eat.
Some parts of our body copy slower like heart and neurological tissue. Hence less rates of heart and spinal cancer. And parts that copy faster, there are lots of mistakes, like in our reproductive organs, the ovaries and prostate.
The most a cell can copy itself before looking like a bowl of "bla" is 117 times. Eating less by starving the cell to copy slower, has proven to prolong life, but not getting hit by a bus helps too. So, yes, outside factors like the sun, can make mistake cells happen, but we are doing that all the time anyway naturally.
And how our biology is already very imperfect and flawed naturally.
So, anything that can go wrong will. Which makes me wonder if how
we are "made" has much more impact than what we "eat".
We are born like a perfect sheet of music. I like think of Ode to Joy.
Then our cells copy themselves. So put the sheet of music on the copy
machine. The first ten copies are perfect, that's us at ten years old. Then copying from each subsequent copy we start to see small flaws. The page is a little off center. So, now the copies are less perfect. These are wrinkles.
What our bodies do to try and fix any error cells by eating them. We have T-Helper cells that travel around marking the mistake cells and other cells that eat them. As we age both all these systems are slower, and worse, we are producing more and more mistake cells, no matter what you eat.
Some parts of our body copy slower like heart and neurological tissue. Hence less rates of heart and spinal cancer. And parts that copy faster, there are lots of mistakes, like in our reproductive organs, the ovaries and prostate.
The most a cell can copy itself before looking like a bowl of "bla" is 117 times. Eating less by starving the cell to copy slower, has proven to prolong life, but not getting hit by a bus helps too. So, yes, outside factors like the sun, can make mistake cells happen, but we are doing that all the time anyway naturally.
5
I no longer believe that once politicians' children and grandchildren begin to be born with birth defects, politicians will choose to regulate. The power of greed is fierce. If the problem is breast cancer, well, that's not really so dire an issue in our current cultural attitude toward women. If the problem becomes widespread testicular cancer, we might see some movement toward research and problem solving. Women and children are easily sacrificed to the gods of power and wealth. The chemical lobby is huge, greed is fierce, and the desire to ignore and deny is profound.
9
I agree with the underlying points that relevant federal law needs revision and implementation to most of the substances it was intended to cover, and that consumers/voters need to wise up, big time. Meantime, questions:
1. Why do organic foods cost 20-30% more? Does that reflect higher production costs, grocer profits, or both?
2. Don't these higher prices limit the ability of the non-affluent to have the benefits touted in this article? What can be done about that?
3. The article make me wonder whether the risk of birth defects has been understated compared to cancer risks. If so, why? (Cancer risk typically becomes actionable under federal regs when it reaches 1 in 100,000 to 1 in 1,000,000 based on 30 years of daily consumption/exposure, with a large safety/uncertainty factor -- is cancer risk actually overstated and birth defect risk understated?)
4. If wider use of genetically-modified pest-resistant crops resulted in less pesticide use, would that be acceptable? (This isn't about the roundup/monsanto controversy. It's about insect, fungus, and bacterial pest resistance.)
5. These substances aren't added to food/products merely because producers like them -- after all, they have to buy these substances -- but because consumers want products with certain looks, textures, storage life, etc. To what extent are we willing to give up those qualities?
Let's get more info and start having hard conversations about trade-offs.
1. Why do organic foods cost 20-30% more? Does that reflect higher production costs, grocer profits, or both?
2. Don't these higher prices limit the ability of the non-affluent to have the benefits touted in this article? What can be done about that?
3. The article make me wonder whether the risk of birth defects has been understated compared to cancer risks. If so, why? (Cancer risk typically becomes actionable under federal regs when it reaches 1 in 100,000 to 1 in 1,000,000 based on 30 years of daily consumption/exposure, with a large safety/uncertainty factor -- is cancer risk actually overstated and birth defect risk understated?)
4. If wider use of genetically-modified pest-resistant crops resulted in less pesticide use, would that be acceptable? (This isn't about the roundup/monsanto controversy. It's about insect, fungus, and bacterial pest resistance.)
5. These substances aren't added to food/products merely because producers like them -- after all, they have to buy these substances -- but because consumers want products with certain looks, textures, storage life, etc. To what extent are we willing to give up those qualities?
Let's get more info and start having hard conversations about trade-offs.
5
The answers to most of your questions are easily found in Google and in magazines and in the newspapers. However, the bottom line is that chemicals can reduce the cost of production or keep food from contaminating or going bad etc. Unfortunately, living better through chemistry also has a downside. The immediate upside is that these chemicals also make money for the producer and money is the ultimate bottom line -- including for our politicians -- which is why our laws are so out of whack with our problems.
Speaking as a scientific professional in chemistry, this article is chock-full of blind chemophobia. The EWG is an organization known for twisting data, drawing unsupported conclusions, and blatant fear-mongering.
And despite what is stated in the media, I don't think the 'endocrine disruption hypothesis' is as clear cut as the public might believe. Feeding high doses of a chemical to an animal is not the same thing as chronic, low-level exposure. We should not forget the primary rule in toxicology: "the dose makes the poison." As to cancer rates, historically, many have been flat or falling across all age groups. Perhaps one explanation for the seemingly higher rates are general awareness and better testing.
Anyway, the reality is that synthetic does not mean dangerous and organic/natural does not mean safe (nor is the opposite true).
And despite what is stated in the media, I don't think the 'endocrine disruption hypothesis' is as clear cut as the public might believe. Feeding high doses of a chemical to an animal is not the same thing as chronic, low-level exposure. We should not forget the primary rule in toxicology: "the dose makes the poison." As to cancer rates, historically, many have been flat or falling across all age groups. Perhaps one explanation for the seemingly higher rates are general awareness and better testing.
Anyway, the reality is that synthetic does not mean dangerous and organic/natural does not mean safe (nor is the opposite true).
15
Unfortunately, it is not very scientific to assign a single threshold dose to the entire population because individuals have specific responses in their uniquely specific biological system. You are also generalizing all scientific animal models which is dishonest. Some populations may have a genetic susceptibility to certain chemicals, thereby those individuals will respond atypically towards a toxin. The statement "dose makes the poison" is not appropriate when taking in wide variable populations with different genetic makeups. Individuals with mild mitochondrial defects, polymorphism (SNPs) in gene alterations, low glutathione, or anaphylactic reactions do not fit in your generalizations.
3
You are right, it is not rigorously scientific to establish a uniform threshold dosage, but until we know all the unknowns and caveats, it is still quite appropriate to use relatively uniform thresholds across the population (and frankly, it's the best we have at the moment). I also did not feel it is necessary to write a treatise on all the possibilities and nooks and crannies that is modern life and our understanding of biology in the comments section of the NYT. My point is that I don't think it's appropriate to blindly subscribe to the church of the precautionary principle and use it as a weapon to block all "chemicals" because we don't know everything and some people with an agenda setting up shoddy studies to scare people needlessly.
But going back to the threshold dosage, at least for stuff that could be found in food: typically, it's based on animal studies, where they take the most sensitive animal and lowest dosage where they observed any negative effect, then add a safety factor of 10-100x when setting a regulation (and then when you actually look at the levels of contaminants, they are far, far below such threshold levels).
But going back to the threshold dosage, at least for stuff that could be found in food: typically, it's based on animal studies, where they take the most sensitive animal and lowest dosage where they observed any negative effect, then add a safety factor of 10-100x when setting a regulation (and then when you actually look at the levels of contaminants, they are far, far below such threshold levels).
14
This is a more responsible post because people use the "dose makes the poison" sound bite to uniformly dose whole populations. Further, there are agendas on either side whose intention is to scare people needlessly. As a mother of a child with atopic disease I often ascribe to the precautionary principles; however, this is my choice, and I do not wish to arbitrarily block chemical use from society. We do know some things. For example Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, an NIH researcher has extensively looked at specific high-impact chemicals and their outcomes, which has yielded enlightening findings.
Interestingly, in mechanically deboned meats and infant food made with meat there twice the adequate intake of fluoride (0.6 mg), which according to Dr. Landrigan is a neurotoxin (Fein, & Cerklewski, 2001). There is also a cumulative effect with high-impact chemicals. To think that the body can process multiple sources, doses, and rates of an untold amount of chemicals throughout a typical day without ever reaching a tipping point is not responsible. This is about transparency and choice.
Fein, N., & Cerklewski, F. (2001). Fluoride content of foods made with mechanically separated chicken. Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry 49(9): 4284-6
Interestingly, in mechanically deboned meats and infant food made with meat there twice the adequate intake of fluoride (0.6 mg), which according to Dr. Landrigan is a neurotoxin (Fein, & Cerklewski, 2001). There is also a cumulative effect with high-impact chemicals. To think that the body can process multiple sources, doses, and rates of an untold amount of chemicals throughout a typical day without ever reaching a tipping point is not responsible. This is about transparency and choice.
Fein, N., & Cerklewski, F. (2001). Fluoride content of foods made with mechanically separated chicken. Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry 49(9): 4284-6
3
It is quite regretful that NYT that takes pride in supporting scientific views on problems like global warming, allows its coverage of environmental chemistry to be heavily skewed towards alarmist positions completely ignoring the huge volume of evidence to the opposite. Environmental levels of 100% natural endocrine disruptors (mostly, isoflavonoids from soy) are orders of magnitude greater than of anything synthetic. Many other natural products are acutely toxic (death cap mushroom, anyone?) or cause lengthy painful conditions (poison ivy - rest assured that you are much likely to suffer injury from it than from any chemical in your household...). Mold growing in non-fumigated organic grains is proven to cause cancer. Chemicals made by the industry are heavily regulated already, and those at risk of a lot of human exposure had been exhaustively tested at a cost of hundreds of millions $$. It is impossible to prove that there is any material that will not harm under any circumstance. People drown in water, and eating 2 pounds of salt will likely kill you.
I hoped with Mr. Bittman changing the field of his work the anti-chemistry hysteria on these pages would end. Looks like Mr. Kristof is ready to raise the fallen banner.
I hoped with Mr. Bittman changing the field of his work the anti-chemistry hysteria on these pages would end. Looks like Mr. Kristof is ready to raise the fallen banner.
13
tobacco executive in the 1970s made the same arguments. thanks for saying its "quite regretful" instead of the ubiquitous "It saddens me" to convey your pseudo-thoughtfulness.
1
Many thanks to Mr. Kristoff for doing so.
Yes mushrooms can kill you--the difference is: there's no legislation requiring death-cap mushrooms use in furniture.
1
The same thing happens with medical devices. FDA approves devices with heavy metals and materials that are not well tolerated by people on the ends of the bell curve. These devices include mercury-containing dental amalgam, nickel containing Essure contraceptive coils, and mesh made out of plastics never approved for use in the human body. Join the call for Medical and Dental Device Safety Urgent Reform (MEDDSURGE) http://www.petition2congress.com/18325/medical-dental-device-safety-urge...
2
Perhaps the most wide-spread endocrine disrupter is Sodium Fluoride, distributed to hundreds of millions of Americans through their public water supplies. See the journal Endocrine Reviews, June 2012, http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/er.2011-1050
Article "Hormones and Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: Low-Dose Effects and Nonmonotonic Dose Responses," by Laura N. Vandenberg, et. al.
Table 3 states that: Sodium Fluoride "Inhibits insulin secretion, PTH, TH"
Article "Hormones and Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: Low-Dose Effects and Nonmonotonic Dose Responses," by Laura N. Vandenberg, et. al.
Table 3 states that: Sodium Fluoride "Inhibits insulin secretion, PTH, TH"
4
Why do the Republicans, and others, so fear an ethical candidate ? Because there is so much unethical in our society and culture that needs to be 'protected' from effective regulation. And it's likely that pigs will fly before the needed changes occur.
In the meantime, STOP USING THE STUFF! Be vigilant, be open to the science, communicate what you know to friends and family, be aware, stop consuming every new and unnecessary item, stop ingesting or slathering drugs and chems 24/7.
You're beautiful without 'product'.
Pig WILL fly, when their hungry enough.
In the meantime, STOP USING THE STUFF! Be vigilant, be open to the science, communicate what you know to friends and family, be aware, stop consuming every new and unnecessary item, stop ingesting or slathering drugs and chems 24/7.
You're beautiful without 'product'.
Pig WILL fly, when their hungry enough.
36
Oh but we wouldn't want "big gov'ment" interfering by regulating the chemical industry, would we?
Free-dumb!
The American voter deserves this situation.
Free-dumb!
The American voter deserves this situation.
3
The people who run a corporation are not required by the stockholders to act ethically. They are required to make money. If they use the resources of the corporation for any purpose other than making money, they are betraying the trust of their stockholders. In the old phrase, they don't work for the public, they work for the stockholders. I don't blame them for that, that's what they were hired to do, what they are paid to do. Thus they will act honestly and ethically ONLY when the bottom line is likely to be immediately effected by not doing so.
It is the job of the public, and of the government to make sure, via regulation and other sanctions, that unethical and dishonest behavior is not possible and/or profitable. Unless we, as a nation, do that, we will suffer.
It is the job of the public, and of the government to make sure, via regulation and other sanctions, that unethical and dishonest behavior is not possible and/or profitable. Unless we, as a nation, do that, we will suffer.
124
Unfortunately, the pharmaceutical, bio-chemical, and industrial sectors have learned how to successfully lobby both regulatory and political agencies so that they not only poison the bodies of the public, but the minds of those who are supposed to protect us, including the media. Kudos to Kristof for writing this piece. See http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2362
Whether it's contaminating our bodies or contaminating our air, water, and land, the common theme is a willful ignorance among us all and a willingness to value the stuff we have instead of the lives we need.
Like the crowd being huckstered by a fast talking huckster we have been willingly flim-flamd into thinking that all that junk we buy will actually grow hair, cure our aches and pains, turn hunks of metal into magic carpets, and otherwise solve our every problem. We are happy to ignore Newton's third law of physics when it comes to the reality and for a few dollars our politicians are happy to look the other way when it comes to the truth.
Like the crowd being huckstered by a fast talking huckster we have been willingly flim-flamd into thinking that all that junk we buy will actually grow hair, cure our aches and pains, turn hunks of metal into magic carpets, and otherwise solve our every problem. We are happy to ignore Newton's third law of physics when it comes to the reality and for a few dollars our politicians are happy to look the other way when it comes to the truth.
3
I have yet to hear someone suggest that the GOP is "pro-cancer" to the extent that they actually want people to get cancer so their friends in the pharmaceutical and hospital industries can deplete them of every cent they have, but at this point I cannot completely discount the possibility. What is clear is that individuals are no longer regarded as citizens by the GOP; that position has been taken by corporations.
I really don't know how to fight this but there must be a way--something a little less bloody than, say, the French Revolution. But it's going to be very difficult to make progress because the GOP understands that "the base" is fuming with anger, as they have worked to exploit, now for generations, by overwhelmingly supporting religion and even guns over education.
I'm not sure how much more our country can take, but I've reluctantly concluded that when corporate mangers look at people around the world, they think that we're too healthy and wealthy and they vow to reverse that. The real proof for me are all the ads (especially from chemical and petroleum companies) that suggest they are truly and deeply interested in doing the opposite.
Occasionally, things work in our direction. The Coca-Cola corporation, for example, has been one of the world's most outspoken champions of clean water (of course, that's because their production depends on it). Why can't corporations understand that they will profit more if we're healthy and well off?
I really don't know how to fight this but there must be a way--something a little less bloody than, say, the French Revolution. But it's going to be very difficult to make progress because the GOP understands that "the base" is fuming with anger, as they have worked to exploit, now for generations, by overwhelmingly supporting religion and even guns over education.
I'm not sure how much more our country can take, but I've reluctantly concluded that when corporate mangers look at people around the world, they think that we're too healthy and wealthy and they vow to reverse that. The real proof for me are all the ads (especially from chemical and petroleum companies) that suggest they are truly and deeply interested in doing the opposite.
Occasionally, things work in our direction. The Coca-Cola corporation, for example, has been one of the world's most outspoken champions of clean water (of course, that's because their production depends on it). Why can't corporations understand that they will profit more if we're healthy and well off?
This is the second or third anti-GOP response I've read and I have the same question every time: If the Democrat party is so pure in its motives and actions, where have they been for the past seven years?
1
Ten-year longitudinal studies will be tough for every new product. Yet I wonder about whether the rise in Autism and ADHD is linked to the slow accretion of chemicals in young bodies. Sadly, industry does not want us to know. By the time we do, it will be too late to help millions. That is why I have eliminated many products from my house, grow a lot of my own food, and avoid processed food when I can.
1
Correlation is not causation and blindly pointing to things as a cause for autism/ADHD doesn't do much beyond promoting blind hysteria.
Do you also test your soil? I wouldn't be so quick to assume that something grown myself is inherently better. Natural is not synonymous with safe, nor is synthetic synonymous with dangerous. Plenty of natural contaminants that could ruin your food (and even non-contaminants; just look up toxic zucchini).
Do you also test your soil? I wouldn't be so quick to assume that something grown myself is inherently better. Natural is not synonymous with safe, nor is synthetic synonymous with dangerous. Plenty of natural contaminants that could ruin your food (and even non-contaminants; just look up toxic zucchini).
5
JB is employing the Kehoe paradigm used by every corp from tobacco to GMO who protect their financial interests rather than public health.
Although correlation does not prove causation, the weight of the evidence undeniably points to environmental triggers of disease. Moreover, trying to find a single exposure for one to one causation is a disingenuous use of false logic. You might as well say smoking doesn't cause cancer because 1) not every smoker dies of cancer and 2) you can't identify the single cigarette or cigar that "caused" the disease.
“We now live in a nation where doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, government destroy freedom, the press destroys information, religion destroys morals, and our banks destroy the economy.” ~ Chris Hedges, minister, Pulitzer Prize winner, war correspondent, activist, in “Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt” (2012)
Although correlation does not prove causation, the weight of the evidence undeniably points to environmental triggers of disease. Moreover, trying to find a single exposure for one to one causation is a disingenuous use of false logic. You might as well say smoking doesn't cause cancer because 1) not every smoker dies of cancer and 2) you can't identify the single cigarette or cigar that "caused" the disease.
“We now live in a nation where doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, government destroy freedom, the press destroys information, religion destroys morals, and our banks destroy the economy.” ~ Chris Hedges, minister, Pulitzer Prize winner, war correspondent, activist, in “Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt” (2012)
1
Does anyone check on the following items used in the construction industry: toxic wallboard from China, toxic flooring from China, toxic carpeting from China, toxic lights from China?
How closely are food imports such as vegetables and fruits from countries other than the US and Canada monitored? And canned goods from China, Thailand, and India?
And why are JOE FRESH togs for sale everywhere after that horrifying
disaster in Bangladesh?
Then one can ask about drugs from China and elsewhere available on
the internet? Profits over safety is just another example of the rampantsocial disease called GREED.
How closely are food imports such as vegetables and fruits from countries other than the US and Canada monitored? And canned goods from China, Thailand, and India?
And why are JOE FRESH togs for sale everywhere after that horrifying
disaster in Bangladesh?
Then one can ask about drugs from China and elsewhere available on
the internet? Profits over safety is just another example of the rampantsocial disease called GREED.
3
Back in the mid 1960's a friends parent returned from Ireland.I asked them about the trip and his mom told me about their strawberry soda and how so very pale pink it was ,unlike our soda in the US which was colored so red;this always stuck in my mind.
The FDA does not have society's best interest at heart.
We bleach sugar,why?
We color soda and add other 'stuff',why?
We market round,totally unblemished tomatoes,why?
We put stuff in shampoo to make suds and other effects on your scalp,why?
FDA allows gene alterations in /for apples and potatoes so they do not show bruising,why?(and if we don't see the bruises does this mean there is no bruising or just no discoloration and will this lead to rotting fruit and vegetable still?We will not know because now we cannot see it?)Again why?
Where and when did American companies decide for the people that all these additives to our food and products was something we wanted, desired, or is even justifiable towards our health and well being?
This reminds me of Pharmaceutical company using anti depressants as a smoking cessation option or a marketing ploy.Why would someone take an anti-depressant (in conjunction with a stop smoking cessation program) to stop smoking?Think about this...again the FDA approved this measure...why?
Why do we want to change our food and products to be something they are not meant to be when there are products that have the exact same result with no harmful additives?
The FDA does not have society's best interest at heart.
We bleach sugar,why?
We color soda and add other 'stuff',why?
We market round,totally unblemished tomatoes,why?
We put stuff in shampoo to make suds and other effects on your scalp,why?
FDA allows gene alterations in /for apples and potatoes so they do not show bruising,why?(and if we don't see the bruises does this mean there is no bruising or just no discoloration and will this lead to rotting fruit and vegetable still?We will not know because now we cannot see it?)Again why?
Where and when did American companies decide for the people that all these additives to our food and products was something we wanted, desired, or is even justifiable towards our health and well being?
This reminds me of Pharmaceutical company using anti depressants as a smoking cessation option or a marketing ploy.Why would someone take an anti-depressant (in conjunction with a stop smoking cessation program) to stop smoking?Think about this...again the FDA approved this measure...why?
Why do we want to change our food and products to be something they are not meant to be when there are products that have the exact same result with no harmful additives?
5
I'll respond to just one issue raised here. The use of Wellbutrin as an aid in smoking cessation is a result of serendipity. Many people using Wellbutrin for depression found that they were able to quit smoking with little effort after having tried unsuccessfully for years. I am a psychologist and had several clients report this to me with delight. (As a psychologist I don't prescribe medication.) When Wellbutrin is used for smoking cessation as part of a stop smoking program it is for a limited time period until the non-smoking pattern is firmly in place. Smoking certainly has many very serious consequences and we as a society should support the ability of smokers to use aids to transition to a healthier lifestyle.
3
Wow, they noticed. A little late in the game. It's time to adopt the precautionary principal.
1
A thousand cuts . . . of exponential complexity: the unprecedented reach of our species numbers wielding unprecedented technology yielding unprecedented complex relationships in and across geo eco bio cultural & tech networks and across time:
Chemicals ubiquitous
> 5.5 billion people added since 1915
Carbon and methane converting the sky into a lethal gas chamber
Ocean acidification
Bacteria becoming resistant
Forests being cut
Exponential extinction rates
Assault weaponry
Sugar consumption
Phosphorus & Nitrogen in the oceans, one of 4
Of 9 Planetary Boundaries exceeded
Chemicals ubiquitous
> 5.5 billion people added since 1915
Carbon and methane converting the sky into a lethal gas chamber
Ocean acidification
Bacteria becoming resistant
Forests being cut
Exponential extinction rates
Assault weaponry
Sugar consumption
Phosphorus & Nitrogen in the oceans, one of 4
Of 9 Planetary Boundaries exceeded
6
Trace this back to $$ contaminating our politics. Where’s the follow up to: “Europe is moving toward testing chemicals before they go on the market, but the US is a laggard because of the power of the chemical lobby.” No kidding? This is what the column should be about instead of 1 sentence. More lamentations for problems that we can trace to blockage of political remedies. Even with threats to health and lives, they’re allowed to metastasize, to use an apt word. And why?
Because of big money directing our elections and lawmaking, and hardly discussed on media. Don’t offend the powers that be as they pull the strings, lest you sound too Left Wing? But is it Left to have more public than corporate influence on our laws? Columns ignore obvious practical strategies for reform.
So Mr. Kristof, what’s your remedy for the list chemical horrors you alarm us with? Where’s your reporting on how advanced countries publicly fund their elections? That’s what lets them ‘test their chemicals before marketing’. And our private corporate funding of elections is what blocks it. Here, health and lives are lower priority.
Related: the EU bans drug advertising on the media direct to consumers--see recent editorial. Should be widely publicized here as a contrast to our plague of medical ads on TV day and night.
Our chemical lobby spends 121,000 per member of Congress? What do the chemical lobbies in other countries spend and how are their profits? Don’t keep it dark.
Because of big money directing our elections and lawmaking, and hardly discussed on media. Don’t offend the powers that be as they pull the strings, lest you sound too Left Wing? But is it Left to have more public than corporate influence on our laws? Columns ignore obvious practical strategies for reform.
So Mr. Kristof, what’s your remedy for the list chemical horrors you alarm us with? Where’s your reporting on how advanced countries publicly fund their elections? That’s what lets them ‘test their chemicals before marketing’. And our private corporate funding of elections is what blocks it. Here, health and lives are lower priority.
Related: the EU bans drug advertising on the media direct to consumers--see recent editorial. Should be widely publicized here as a contrast to our plague of medical ads on TV day and night.
Our chemical lobby spends 121,000 per member of Congress? What do the chemical lobbies in other countries spend and how are their profits? Don’t keep it dark.
4
This is a perfect companion piece for "What Comes Out in the Wash" (Mark Anthony Browne, NYT, 11 28 2015),
Thank you so much for it.
Thank you so much for it.
Superb and important column. Thank you, Mr. Kristof.
Can you also research for us, and inform us, how passage of the "Trans Pacific Partnership" (TPP) agreement would impact the ability of the United States to control the toxins that the chemical industry is permitted to market?
I think it was your former colleague Mark Bittman who called this agreement a "corporate coup d'etat," since it would allow corporations to sue national governments for lost profits, if protections that inhibit the ability of a corporation to sell what they want, are passed into law. Phillip Morris is currently suing Uruguay because of that nation's anti-smoking campaign.
Here is Mr. Bittman's column http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/opinion/obama-and-republicans-agree-on...
- since it was written, we are already closer to passage of TPP (because President Obama was given so-called "fast-track authority" for it) but it is not yet passed - we all need to call our legislators.
Thank you again for this work, Mr. Kristof.
Can you also research for us, and inform us, how passage of the "Trans Pacific Partnership" (TPP) agreement would impact the ability of the United States to control the toxins that the chemical industry is permitted to market?
I think it was your former colleague Mark Bittman who called this agreement a "corporate coup d'etat," since it would allow corporations to sue national governments for lost profits, if protections that inhibit the ability of a corporation to sell what they want, are passed into law. Phillip Morris is currently suing Uruguay because of that nation's anti-smoking campaign.
Here is Mr. Bittman's column http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/opinion/obama-and-republicans-agree-on...
- since it was written, we are already closer to passage of TPP (because President Obama was given so-called "fast-track authority" for it) but it is not yet passed - we all need to call our legislators.
Thank you again for this work, Mr. Kristof.
5
Where in the world can one buy couches without flame retardants? I tried in middle America and failed. Couches don't even catch fire WITHOUT flame retardants! Why is this stuff in our soaps and in everything that touches our babies? What will their lives and health be like?! -Mom of two autistic kids
3
You can go to ewg.org (The Environmental Working Group) and search for sofas flame retardants. Here you will find a list of non-toxic sofas.
1
The Silent Spring Institute has been compiling Data for many years now, http://www.silentspring.org
Their work on every day toxins that surround us, in our homes, flame retardants and things we take for granted, is most eye opening.
Their work on every day toxins that surround us, in our homes, flame retardants and things we take for granted, is most eye opening.
5
I very much like your columns in general but this one is too shallow for me. I would have expected some more examples of what to avoid exactly and what is new about it. In other words: do you have to buy everything organically or are some vegetables more prone to being loaded with dangerous chemicals than others? Remember that not everyone can afford to shop in the future only at Whole Foods, besides the question is always, if everything organic is really safe. Were we always living in such a toxic environment, or what changed? More plastic, more pesticides, the wrapping industry as culprit? How can we in a reasonable way avoid some dangers? You will say: Too much for a short article, and I think you could have cut out some repetitive lines on pregnancy etc.
Over the same period US life expectancy has gained and will continue to do so. What explains these gains if 'everything' causes cencer?
5
better medications. gains in the medical field. Is there anyone you know over 60 not taking cholesterol or blood-pressure meds or heart pills?
The chemical lobby spends some 120K on each congressman? In addition to the millions spent on each by a swarm of lobbyists, to maintain its loopholes? Doesn't it sound too harsh? It is like calling our 'reps' political prostitutes, sold to the highest bidder? Wait a minute, could this be true?
There is more needed than just the safety assessment of chemicals. There also needs to be more research done on the best way to test these chemicals for toxicity. Most toxicity research is done in either bacteria or mice, both of which are poor proxies for humans, as they have a history of under- or over-estimating toxic effects. With the advent of new "organs on a chip", there needs to be a re-evaluation of the best method to use for testing toxicity.
1
Lenin was wrong when he said; "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."
The defenders of unregulated Capitalism will ensure we poison ourselves; no outside intervention will be necessary.
The defenders of unregulated Capitalism will ensure we poison ourselves; no outside intervention will be necessary.
It's strange that most of these chemicals are petroleum based. Organic life aged hundreds of millions of years is now sustaining and killing us in varied ways. I wish we had the wherewithal to just leave that stuff in the ground where it belongs. Oh well, no one lives forever. But the way, please take your vitamins kids. They are all petro based chemicals.
2
The EPA and FDA do not want to go the way of the IRS; budget decimated, commissioner threatened with impeachment.
So, SSHHHHHHH.
So, SSHHHHHHH.
When will craven, "family values-oriented" politicians stand up to these corporate destroyers of our future?
1
"touch cash register receipts as little as possible"
That's easier for us to do than for the store employee who hands it to you. How many times a day do THEY have to touch them? I hope that all stores that use these toxic cash register receipts switch to a different kind immediately.
Yes, stores should look out for their customers, but their own employees appear to be in a much more vulnerable position than their customers are.
That's easier for us to do than for the store employee who hands it to you. How many times a day do THEY have to touch them? I hope that all stores that use these toxic cash register receipts switch to a different kind immediately.
Yes, stores should look out for their customers, but their own employees appear to be in a much more vulnerable position than their customers are.
1
Worldwide use of agricultural chemicals, many of them known endocrine disruptors (atrazine, glyphosate), has more than quadrupled in the past 50 years. This means that people and wildlife are eating, drinking, and breathing a toxic cocktail of chemicals each and every day.
To say that the “best approach is for people to try and protect themselves” is shameful and smacks of magical thinking. “Trying” to opt out of the chemical soup we live in through personal action won’t work; only political and legal action banning endocrine disrupting chemicals will.
The link between exposure to endocrine disrupting pesticides and other chemicals and a host of adverse health outcomes, particularly in children, is well-documented. Yes, money tends to speak louder than science, but that shouldn’t stop us from speaking up and holding our legislators’ feet to the fire, asking them which is more important: the wealth of a few, or the health of the many?
As long as endocrine disrupting chemicals are legal, advertised as necessary and safe, and lobbied for unceasingly on Capitol Hill, we will continue to suffer ever-higher numbers of cancers and other serious illnesses. This will happen whether there’s a flame-retardant-free couch in your living room and organic milk in your refrigerator or not.
To say that the “best approach is for people to try and protect themselves” is shameful and smacks of magical thinking. “Trying” to opt out of the chemical soup we live in through personal action won’t work; only political and legal action banning endocrine disrupting chemicals will.
The link between exposure to endocrine disrupting pesticides and other chemicals and a host of adverse health outcomes, particularly in children, is well-documented. Yes, money tends to speak louder than science, but that shouldn’t stop us from speaking up and holding our legislators’ feet to the fire, asking them which is more important: the wealth of a few, or the health of the many?
As long as endocrine disrupting chemicals are legal, advertised as necessary and safe, and lobbied for unceasingly on Capitol Hill, we will continue to suffer ever-higher numbers of cancers and other serious illnesses. This will happen whether there’s a flame-retardant-free couch in your living room and organic milk in your refrigerator or not.
138
Re: "“Trying” to opt out of the chemical soup we live in through personal action won’t work; only political and legal action banning endocrine disrupting chemicals will. "
I agree that political and legal action is needed. Meanwhile, however, I think we can each "clean up" our household. We can avoid pesticides. We can clean with homemade or other 'natural' cleaners (think vinegar, baking soda, etc). We can get rid of our Teflon its and pans; get rid of most of our plastic kitchen utensils/plates/bowls. We can use natural soaps in the bathroom, laundry room and kitchen. We can eat whole foods, less processed foods, organics.
There's much we can do on our own. I think we just don't know how much of the endocrine disruptors are still coming out of our ten year old flame retardant couch and how much we're eating or breathing in from stuff we keep bringing into our home. But to me it makes sense to "contain" the problem by not bringing in more chemicals to the home, to the extent -- and it's not perfect but it is to a great extent that we're able to do that.
So let's do that AND let's also work on legal and political action.
I agree that political and legal action is needed. Meanwhile, however, I think we can each "clean up" our household. We can avoid pesticides. We can clean with homemade or other 'natural' cleaners (think vinegar, baking soda, etc). We can get rid of our Teflon its and pans; get rid of most of our plastic kitchen utensils/plates/bowls. We can use natural soaps in the bathroom, laundry room and kitchen. We can eat whole foods, less processed foods, organics.
There's much we can do on our own. I think we just don't know how much of the endocrine disruptors are still coming out of our ten year old flame retardant couch and how much we're eating or breathing in from stuff we keep bringing into our home. But to me it makes sense to "contain" the problem by not bringing in more chemicals to the home, to the extent -- and it's not perfect but it is to a great extent that we're able to do that.
So let's do that AND let's also work on legal and political action.
Two words. Hair Die.
1
So many birds coming home to roost. We are continually meeting the enemy...Yet there is always promiced hope. We take the precautions that we can. Of course the progressively wealthier can control/filter their environment more so than the poorer. Yet we see that the problems are so pervasive that no one is completely protected with their loved ones. We must reach across the divisions between us; this I think is part of the sure path. Secondly with knowledge comes the power to both make choices and to unite to protest and expose the underlying social and personal weaknesses which everyone is familiar with. The execs of the chemical and tobacco industries are not aliens they are our children and our fathers and mothers. We know them as we know ourselves. Thirdly we have to reassure ourselves that while we take what precautions that we can, in the end it isn't the quantity of life that matters but the spiritual quality of our lives, however short or long that truly matters. I am just as vulnerable to making comparisons with others as anyone, but I know what truly matters in the nightly recitation of my beliefs in a Supreme and Merciful God. Color, wealth, nationality, physical appearance are all immaterial in the spiritual world which stretches far beyond this plane of existence.
We unintentionally do this to ourselves by passing control of our lives to corporations driven by avarice.
Lead an intentional life. Avoid time-saving, health-killing toxins. There are no benign toxic chemicals.
People need to wake up ....Toxic is bad, not good. Pollution is bad, not good. Don't listen to the advocates of 'benign toxic chemicals'.
We don't need Toxic Chemicals. We don't need more pollution in the air, in our homes or in our bodies. There are always clean alternatives.
Lead an intentional life. Avoid time-saving, health-killing toxins. There are no benign toxic chemicals.
People need to wake up ....Toxic is bad, not good. Pollution is bad, not good. Don't listen to the advocates of 'benign toxic chemicals'.
We don't need Toxic Chemicals. We don't need more pollution in the air, in our homes or in our bodies. There are always clean alternatives.
4
By far the most ubiquitous endocrine disruptor Americans are subjected to is FLUORIDE - yes the stuff in the water, although it is also in our pesticides and pharmaceuticals. Even from the ill conceived conception of our artificial water fluoridation scheme, doctors and scientists warned that even low dose fluoride consumption inhibited thyroid hormones, could damage kidneys, and would result in increased levels of arthritis. Since then, there have been animal, in vitro, and epidemiological studies proving fluoride exposure during pregnancy or early childhood results in dramatic increases in learning disabilities, i.e. permanent if subtle brain damage.
Get political. Tell your Congressmen in Washington to tell the Institute of Medicine to respond to the April 2015 letter signed by Erin Brockovich, the Institute of Environmental Medicine, et. al. Then tell your state governors and local city councils to brush their teeth with the stuff if they want, but to get the fluoride out of our water! Those of us with autoimmune diseases, endocrine disorders, and inflammatory diseases like arthritis don't want it!
Get political. Tell your Congressmen in Washington to tell the Institute of Medicine to respond to the April 2015 letter signed by Erin Brockovich, the Institute of Environmental Medicine, et. al. Then tell your state governors and local city councils to brush their teeth with the stuff if they want, but to get the fluoride out of our water! Those of us with autoimmune diseases, endocrine disorders, and inflammatory diseases like arthritis don't want it!
10
I'm always amazed when I read these articles that they aren't somehow trumping news about Trump, or gun violence. I have been aware of this for about 23 years (since I was 15 and became a vegetarian for 5 years. Now that journey opens up some scary talk on toxicity) One can only wonder how many people are toxic in this world and how it is affecting not only in utero, but throughout the lifespan. Psychological disorders, abusive behaviours, insomnia, arthritis, and on and on all have strong connections to toxicity and malnutrition (toxic with high fructose corn syrup for example).
That the mainstream is getting this I question. Just watch television and decide if internal bleeding, liver cancer, and blindness are ok risks to treat depression?
That the mainstream is getting this I question. Just watch television and decide if internal bleeding, liver cancer, and blindness are ok risks to treat depression?
13
Something not mentioned here is the fact that in toxicology - the dose is a he poison. The mere presence of any chemical does not necessarily constitute harm. In addition, harm found in rodents exposed to massive amounts of any substance proves nothing about trace exposures to humans.
In addition, many of the new concerns, like endocrine disruption, are so broadly defined as to be meaningless. If they exist at all. As a result, the fears of chemical exposure are less based on any real science than in anti-modernity superstition. And that type of thinking is not good for anyone's health.
In addition, many of the new concerns, like endocrine disruption, are so broadly defined as to be meaningless. If they exist at all. As a result, the fears of chemical exposure are less based on any real science than in anti-modernity superstition. And that type of thinking is not good for anyone's health.
8
Doctors and those who work with sick people are coming out against this but you are poo-pooing it. What are your qualifications to undermine their recommendations?
1
People need to wake up ....Toxic is bad, not good. Pollution is bad, not good. Don't listen to the advocates of 'benign toxic chemicals'.
We don't need Toxic Chemicals. We don't need more pollution in the air, in our homes or in our bodies. There are always clean alternatives.
We don't need Toxic Chemicals. We don't need more pollution in the air, in our homes or in our bodies. There are always clean alternatives.
1
Another thing! We are addicted to consumerism. And we frenetically buy hundreds of toxic products that fill our homes. We have indeed become nothing more than consumers who feel most alive when we buy more, the latest, the best or the newest. Our accumulation of superfluous objects has become a mania driven by corporations. A Thanksgiving holiday with a simple festive meal, meaningful conversation, board games, and some well needed rest with a good book and a long walk is so over. Anyone who can't keep up with this race is relegated to oblivion ... the elderly, the handicapped, the poor, the unattractive. And the rest of us race to be acceptable by acquiring and living a life that is Facebook worthy.
7
A semantic suggestion:
"The threat is particularly great when unborn children are exposed", the Endocrine Society warned.
Since the "pro-life" people seem to have co-opted the term "unborn", can we be more professionally exact & substitute the terms embryo &/or fetus, when we're discussing exposure, please ?
"The threat is particularly great when unborn children are exposed", the Endocrine Society warned.
Since the "pro-life" people seem to have co-opted the term "unborn", can we be more professionally exact & substitute the terms embryo &/or fetus, when we're discussing exposure, please ?
15
Sure--if you'll stipulate that "pro-choice" means the choice to engage or not to engage in an act that can biologically produce a child rather than the choice of whether or not to kill one.
Once again, money trumps (pun intended) health and safety. The chemical industry is worse than big tobacco. Even if consumers don't purchase these products directly, they are at risk as these dangerous chemical substances ultimately end up in the environment.
The millions funneled to willing legislators to gut public interest regulations on the chemical industry pays outstanding dividends. Unless the public demands changes to the money in politics dynamic, expect cancer rates to continue their upward spiral. There is no place to hide...
The millions funneled to willing legislators to gut public interest regulations on the chemical industry pays outstanding dividends. Unless the public demands changes to the money in politics dynamic, expect cancer rates to continue their upward spiral. There is no place to hide...
6
Thank you for this important article Mr. Kristof. I am one of several people in my family who has a thyroid disorder that I assume was caused by a combination of my genetic susceptibility & overexposure to endocrine disruptors in my environment. I don't trust our legislators to protect the American people against these common toxins since they can't find the moral courage to even pass effective gun control legislation. What I can do to prevent further damage to my endocrine system is to purchase organic, free-range, or wild sourced proteins if affordable. Also, buy fresh, organic produce as much as possible & choose glass for food storage. Stop using plastic wrap on left-overs, purchase canned goods only if they're clearly marked “BPA-free", brew my own teas instead of buying sugary drinks in plastic bottles, make sure that the dish washing fluid is phosphates & fragrance free & use as little as possible, trade in non-stick cookware for cast iron or stainless steel, avoid eating with plastic utensils instead use wooden chopsticks, use glass instead of plastic tumblers & stainless steel reusable water bottles, don't use Tupper Ware or plastic to microwave instead only use microwave safe ceramic & don't cover with plastic during microwaving as it can leak into food. Also, make sure to supplement your diet with iodine to protect the thyroid gland. Also, regularly detox the liver with natural herbal remedies to remove toxin accumulation.
26
I am interested in how to detox the liver with natural herbal remedies. Seriously, what are these remedies and where can they be purchased ? and are these remedies safe ? Just because it is "natural" doesn't mean it is safe, as I am sure you know.
1
There are many products available although my Acupuncturist recommended Activated Charcoal, Healthforce Intestinal Movement Formula, NOW foods liver detoxifier & regenerator, drinking apple cider vinegar before each meal, drink green tea, purified water with lemon juice & cranberry juice & eat artichokes which contain cynarin and chlorogenic acid that help protect and strengthen the liver while helping the kidneys filter out toxins from the blood and excrete them in urine. Also, exercise as sweating filters out toxins & impurities from the bloodstream. These are all "natural" methods as opposed to taking pharmaceuticals that consist of synthetic as opposed to herbal remedies.
1
...and don't use dryer sheets, plug-in air "fresheners," and even certain laundry detergents which claim to be fragrance free, but aren't. That "new car smell" is toxic and remains so for years, as are the fumes in most recreational vehicles. All the above give me headaches and nausea, but even people who aren't seemingly bothered by the smells may be affected.
2
Widespread publication of studies which indict suspect chemicals will likely cause consumers to boycott those products and force the industry to reformulate.
7
Seems a little late to be talking about this now. My children are in their mid-forties, and I was worried about this when they were children. What about the food we eat? What about the pesticides and glyphosates? Haven't people been making the connection between environmental toxins and cancer for many decades? What about the cost of runaway health problems? Don't people think about toxins? Global corporations are making a killing on these products, literally.
17
I've heard that there is not one tissue in the human body that does not have plastic in it, and this comprises most of the population of the world
1
If there was a blood test that could show the extent of contamination in each of our blood streams I think the public would pretty quickly get behind regulation even without proof of actual harm.
19
There are blood tests, but they are not paid for by your health care insurance, nor are they ordered by your health care provider. Detoxing is probably your best bet and eating clean or organic as much as possible. I read a study that said one week eating all organic and no prepackaged foods can take most of the chemicals out of you. Also remember the original formula for Roundup was a to be used to get rid of minerals like Magnesium. So take your magnesium daily too. Ban Soy in any form from your diet as it is rich in Roundup and is a natural estrogen replacement.
2
That is exactly what I was thinking. Have people haul their kids downs to CVS for a quick blood test and give proof of contaminates by chemical name. A home test kit for chemicals in food would also be great. Do I smell a business opportunity?
1
Kudos to Kristoff for this article. It is long overdue. I was in the environmental health education field for 25 years and learned about endocrine disrupting chemicals since the late 80's and early 90's from the work of Theo Colborn -- and about their obesogenic properties in the early 2000's. It would be nice if the paper of record didn't lag by a decade or more in reporting on these issues, but that seems to be the norm. Europe is far ahead of us and has been for quite a while. The Precautionary Principle (ensuring chemicals are safe BEFORE they come to market) as been enshrined in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (EU) since the year 2000. But if the Transpacific Trade Partnership (TPP) and its companion the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) are adopted, it will spell the death of the Precautionary Principle: any attempt to protect public health through laws or regulation of toxic chemicals will risk legal action in international pro-corporate tribunals. Companies will sue on the grounds that such regulation impinges on their profits -- and they will win. It's Profits Over People every time as our democratic rights to protect our life and health are whittled away by those "public servants" who are supposed to safeguard them.
76
Here's the problem:
Rigorous testing of a new chemical for human safety is a hugely expensive process - estimate at least $1million and maybe 10 years. This is nobody's fault, not even the Romans'.
So we have to make choices.
It's easy to say "the chemical lobby" this or that. That hugely oversimplifes the question.
The real problem in this case is with us, the greedy consumers.
Because these chemicals that are unproven are often the same chemicals that enable many of the products we want to use, or enable them to be sold so cheaply, or ironically, to be safe for use.
If we want to minimize the use of unproven chemicals (and I strongly believe that we should), then we need to make compromises:For example:
- that plastic additive you're worried about may be the same additive that enables liquid products to have thinner bottles without leaking - which saves money and reduces plastic waste.
- that food additive may be what enables you to store the product for a month instead of a day.
- that gasoline additive may dramatically increase fuel-efficiency, also helping the environment.
And so on ...
What we need is a much more open debate of the pro's and con's, and make the right choices. This is what groups like and the EPO are supposed to be doing ...
In the EU we now have "REACH" legislation which creates a common policy across countries about which chemicals are qualfied as "safe", and the procedures needed to qualify a new chemical. It's a start ...
Rigorous testing of a new chemical for human safety is a hugely expensive process - estimate at least $1million and maybe 10 years. This is nobody's fault, not even the Romans'.
So we have to make choices.
It's easy to say "the chemical lobby" this or that. That hugely oversimplifes the question.
The real problem in this case is with us, the greedy consumers.
Because these chemicals that are unproven are often the same chemicals that enable many of the products we want to use, or enable them to be sold so cheaply, or ironically, to be safe for use.
If we want to minimize the use of unproven chemicals (and I strongly believe that we should), then we need to make compromises:For example:
- that plastic additive you're worried about may be the same additive that enables liquid products to have thinner bottles without leaking - which saves money and reduces plastic waste.
- that food additive may be what enables you to store the product for a month instead of a day.
- that gasoline additive may dramatically increase fuel-efficiency, also helping the environment.
And so on ...
What we need is a much more open debate of the pro's and con's, and make the right choices. This is what groups like and the EPO are supposed to be doing ...
In the EU we now have "REACH" legislation which creates a common policy across countries about which chemicals are qualfied as "safe", and the procedures needed to qualify a new chemical. It's a start ...
39
Plastics are probably the most widespread introduction of chemicals into our bodies. When I ask for a paper cup in a fast food restaurant, I get handed a styrofoam cup. The server has no idea of the difference. Our food is almost 100 percent packaged and stored, surrounded in plastic. Dust in our houses contains thousands of particles of plastic from the wear and tear on everything from tooth brushes to keyboards. They only way out is to stop buying plastic items whenever possible and lobby for non-corporate research so the class action lawsuits can begin.
21
Just remember, that paper cup you wanted has to be coated with plastic to hold liquids. It is not "just paper".
1
The EWG (Environmental Working Group) is a great organization. Wouldn't it be great if it were what our government did? I thought that was why we had an FDA. But it appears that the fascist state of affairs we live in now, has control over it, so that the corporations that sell these poisons are well protected. Meanwhile normal food is called organic, and is expensive while chemical food is considered "conventional" or normal!
34
The chemical lobby, the tobacco lobby, the energy lobby, the farm lobby, the drug lobby, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we had a people lobby? Oh, the political parties ( and all of their affiliated splinter groups) claim to be such, but they are really just lobbies for their own political interests to the exclusion of the benefit of everyone else.
90
Publicly financed elections would help, let's get rid of the lobbyists.
2
Some simple remedies to this chem-pollution: Require all owners/management to serve as guinea pigs for their own products. A two or three-year test using corporate executives as test subjects, using non-manufacturing staff as a control group.
Same with war. We all know, instinctively, that war is bad for physical and mental health. Yet we do not run carefully set-up scientific experiments. So require that the executives of all military-industrial -legislative groups be used as test subjects, in five-year test cycles. Put them out in the desert and let them shoot it out, testing their equipment for lethality. This includes Congress and the Executive branch. And keep careful statistics. For bomb-testing, the military-industrial complex should be made to use their own factories (Sundays only, when no workers are present) as bomb and missile targets. We should probably include share-holders as part of the guinea pig population, to get a statistically relevant sample size for the tests.
In the case of spy agencies, we would need to "chip" every agency employee and mount them with cams, taps, &c., Also need directories, so citizens can lock on to any and all spy agency employees at will, to see whether any adverse effects are being experienced. As they all work for us, We the People, we would need to be able to freeze their assets, block their communications, etc., whenever interest in their activities triggers surveillance needs. Sauce 4 goose = Sauce 4 gander. Simple, really.
Same with war. We all know, instinctively, that war is bad for physical and mental health. Yet we do not run carefully set-up scientific experiments. So require that the executives of all military-industrial -legislative groups be used as test subjects, in five-year test cycles. Put them out in the desert and let them shoot it out, testing their equipment for lethality. This includes Congress and the Executive branch. And keep careful statistics. For bomb-testing, the military-industrial complex should be made to use their own factories (Sundays only, when no workers are present) as bomb and missile targets. We should probably include share-holders as part of the guinea pig population, to get a statistically relevant sample size for the tests.
In the case of spy agencies, we would need to "chip" every agency employee and mount them with cams, taps, &c., Also need directories, so citizens can lock on to any and all spy agency employees at will, to see whether any adverse effects are being experienced. As they all work for us, We the People, we would need to be able to freeze their assets, block their communications, etc., whenever interest in their activities triggers surveillance needs. Sauce 4 goose = Sauce 4 gander. Simple, really.
22
Mr. Kristof,
This is, as usual, an excellently written article. But there are too many vagaries.
What types of chemicals?
What types of products?
How much of these chemicals are in food?
How many of these chemicals are in everyday over-the-counter items
like deodorant (for a hairy, sweaty guy like me,) aspirin and toothpaste?
What can we do to get rid of these chemicals?
Please let us know! Specifics!!!
This is, as usual, an excellently written article. But there are too many vagaries.
What types of chemicals?
What types of products?
How much of these chemicals are in food?
How many of these chemicals are in everyday over-the-counter items
like deodorant (for a hairy, sweaty guy like me,) aspirin and toothpaste?
What can we do to get rid of these chemicals?
Please let us know! Specifics!!!
17
Her's one example. Farmers spray wheat shortly before harvest with Roundup to make harvest easier.
Then you eat the bread.
Then you eat the bread.
1
Perhaps when men understand that they are coating the derma of their torso with formaldehyde if they wear wrinkle-proof shirts the battle for clear labeling of chemicals used within common products will take up the meager concerns put forth by pregnant women.
12
We live in a nation that undervalues science and scientists. Thus we get decades of non-action when science proves cigarettes cause cancer, when Claire Patterson endlessly sounds the alarm about leaded gas, when global warming grows ever worse. When we do get politicians that respect science, they don't last long because they tell us things we don't like to hear- the Jimmy Carters, the Al Gores the Ed Muskie. The media readily joins in on the beat down. America seems forever ripe for mind control- just look at the success of the Republican party.
83
Just when you think that we have really hit bottom, along comes an article such as this one. The rot at the heart of America is metastasizing at lightening speed. How grateful I am to be 67 and childless.
18
One other very specific item that should be avoided: anti-bacterial soaps. They clean no better than conventional soaps but leave traces of triclosan in the urine of regular users (particularly women). While the downsides remain controversial (though after reading this essay I am suspecting the "controversy" is created by the manufacturers), there is no upside. So not using them is the obvious choice.
22
Hmmm.
Pressmen who work on big printing presses have significantly higher rates of emphysema. Those who are continually exposed to paper, dust and ink have 300% higher risk of pulmonary disease. Dermatitis from offset printing is common.
Pressmen who work on big printing presses have significantly higher rates of emphysema. Those who are continually exposed to paper, dust and ink have 300% higher risk of pulmonary disease. Dermatitis from offset printing is common.
8
Great column. As gigantic as this problem is with the chemical industry poisoning everybody, it is just the tip of the iceberg, because ordinary people and legislators are constantly being manipulated by private industry. That's right, here's a shocker: the "free marketplace" does enormous damage, and it cannot help doing that. This is the equilibrium elucidated in "Phishing for Phools: The Economics of Manipulation and Deception" by George A. Akerlof and Robert J. Shiller.
We are the phools, because we bought the bunk of the proponents of "free markets", who all have a self-interest in manipulating us to buy their products, and to either eliminate regulation or weaken it to the point that it is useless.
The tobacco industry is still at it, killing people for profit. So are the alcohol, pharmaceutical, and food industries, among others. We are a democracy, but our right-wing Supreme Court is on the side of the cheaters and crooks, so they handed most of the power to the corporations who actually run our country. Another financial crisis is also in the making. The question is, will our country be completely destroyed before voters wake up and take back control of our nation? I am not optimistic.
We are the phools, because we bought the bunk of the proponents of "free markets", who all have a self-interest in manipulating us to buy their products, and to either eliminate regulation or weaken it to the point that it is useless.
The tobacco industry is still at it, killing people for profit. So are the alcohol, pharmaceutical, and food industries, among others. We are a democracy, but our right-wing Supreme Court is on the side of the cheaters and crooks, so they handed most of the power to the corporations who actually run our country. Another financial crisis is also in the making. The question is, will our country be completely destroyed before voters wake up and take back control of our nation? I am not optimistic.
31
Don't you know there is so much more profit in curing cancer than preventing it. Prevention actually might cost something rather than generate revenues. So let's all put on something pink and pledge to stand up to cancer - so long as it doesn't inconvenience or cost us anything. Carl, Portland
17
Fifteen years ago I was compelled to pursue a career in research because it was clear that many chemicals exerted effects on the developing embryo, and I naively thought that policy makers and the public just needed more data. I support moderate policy decisions, so I wanted regulations made with caution and good information.
More data exists. Studies upon studies on class after class of compounds, particularly endocrine disruptors, which can target multiple places in the body and not make damaging presence felt until after birth or many years later.
Yet for all the information that has been collected, it is obvious that Congress is toothless and and many members unwilling to protect the people. What draws my ire most is that exposure in utero will stack the deck against the child for the rest of its life--how can anyone dismiss this?
Politicians that get fired up about abortions should be even more protective of the lives that are kept, but I am hard pressed to think of a pro-life environmentalist politician. For all the proclamations of faith and religion and conscience, ultimately, the only deity they truly follow is the one printed on the dollar.
More data exists. Studies upon studies on class after class of compounds, particularly endocrine disruptors, which can target multiple places in the body and not make damaging presence felt until after birth or many years later.
Yet for all the information that has been collected, it is obvious that Congress is toothless and and many members unwilling to protect the people. What draws my ire most is that exposure in utero will stack the deck against the child for the rest of its life--how can anyone dismiss this?
Politicians that get fired up about abortions should be even more protective of the lives that are kept, but I am hard pressed to think of a pro-life environmentalist politician. For all the proclamations of faith and religion and conscience, ultimately, the only deity they truly follow is the one printed on the dollar.
136
So, the chemical lobby is blocking efforts to investigate the safety of chemicals. Who coulda seen that coming? Well, at least this sort of thing isn't happening as we try to address climate change.
6
"In the 1950s, researchers were finding that cigarettes caused cancer, but the political system lagged in responding."
More than 60 years later there is still no meaningful political response. My only concern about smokers is that they burden our health care system. If they want to commit slow suicide that's their business. But those of us exposed to secondhand cigarette smoke and all associated hazards have no protection on the street, in parks (despite bans), and worst of all in our apartments, where the toxic fumes of secondhand smoke drift in and poison our senses and our health. Tobacco cigarettes should be banned everywhere, with electronic cigarettes a meaningful substitute for nicotine addicts who need to suck and blow. The science is there. The political will isn't.
More than 60 years later there is still no meaningful political response. My only concern about smokers is that they burden our health care system. If they want to commit slow suicide that's their business. But those of us exposed to secondhand cigarette smoke and all associated hazards have no protection on the street, in parks (despite bans), and worst of all in our apartments, where the toxic fumes of secondhand smoke drift in and poison our senses and our health. Tobacco cigarettes should be banned everywhere, with electronic cigarettes a meaningful substitute for nicotine addicts who need to suck and blow. The science is there. The political will isn't.
6
I would disagree, there has been a very significant political response...... that involved discovering a way to heavily tax the product and reap enormous tax revenue to spend as they chose. More power for politicians. they curry favor using that revenue as political currency. Terrible
I and my family have had rabbits as pets. Rabbit care guides specify that rabbits should have organic produce only. If pesticides aren't good enough for a rabbit, why are they allowed on food that children eat?
13
I'm disappointed to read such a vague piece from someone who usually immerses himself in a topic before writing it. What chemicals is Kristof referring to? At what doses? Is the issue that regulators not setting proper limits, or are they not enforcing their limits?
The problem with being so vague is that this feeds into all the fears that drive the anti vax movement and those who refuse to allow themselves and their children access to proper medical care.
Most importantly, the fact that Kristof chooses to refer to EWG uncritically, as a valid source, when their advocacy has come under repeated criticism for fear mongering and lack of scientific validity, is disappointing. The EWG’s warnings have driven people away from sunscreen, fluoride and other science-based technologies that protect the public health, through simplistic fear mongering and a lack of scientific date. EWG's ties to the organic lobby are well established – yet he uncritically recommends that readers eat organic (it is common knowledge that organic foods contain known pesticides too, after all).
This article does nothing to educate the public -- instead, it uncritically feeds into the anti-science fears and hysterical rhetoric out there. Very disappointing.
The problem with being so vague is that this feeds into all the fears that drive the anti vax movement and those who refuse to allow themselves and their children access to proper medical care.
Most importantly, the fact that Kristof chooses to refer to EWG uncritically, as a valid source, when their advocacy has come under repeated criticism for fear mongering and lack of scientific validity, is disappointing. The EWG’s warnings have driven people away from sunscreen, fluoride and other science-based technologies that protect the public health, through simplistic fear mongering and a lack of scientific date. EWG's ties to the organic lobby are well established – yet he uncritically recommends that readers eat organic (it is common knowledge that organic foods contain known pesticides too, after all).
This article does nothing to educate the public -- instead, it uncritically feeds into the anti-science fears and hysterical rhetoric out there. Very disappointing.
29
Thank you! I am so annoyed by this paper...
2
Unfortunately, until enough family members of the GOP Congress have these preventable diseases, nothing will change. The GOP House and the GOP Senate will resist any form of regulation, especially when the Chemical Industry is spending $121,000 per member to make sure that happens.
7
i'd have felt a lot better if there were a link to a list of these chemicals, and what products they are found in!
9
Start with Roundup found in nearly all corn and soybeans.
1
To Mountain Dragonfly--You can find the info you want at the EWG (Environmental Working Group) website:
Here is a link:
http://www.ewg.org/
Here is a link:
http://www.ewg.org/
1
Right out of the paranoid school of anti-vaccine and anti-GMO pseudoscience. Let's steer clear of the breast cancer and hypospadia anecdotes and actually find some scientific proof of this before yelling about the sky falling. For what it's worth, he ACOG is the society hellbent on breast cancer screening everyone possible despite the growing evidence it does more harm than good, so let's not go all weak in the knees about their scientific acumen.
13
This opinion piece makes some valid points, but what exactly are "unborn children?"
If you mean zygotes and fetuses, then it should be noted that abnormalities occur for myriads of reasons and roughly 70% of all fertilized eggs never make it to term.
While I agree that better standards for safety are needed and standardized testing should be required before new products enter the market, this article uses language and arguments which are reminiscent of the anti-vaccination movement.
If you mean zygotes and fetuses, then it should be noted that abnormalities occur for myriads of reasons and roughly 70% of all fertilized eggs never make it to term.
While I agree that better standards for safety are needed and standardized testing should be required before new products enter the market, this article uses language and arguments which are reminiscent of the anti-vaccination movement.
13
One of the things that's so infuriating concerns the way in which this problem is addressed in the dominant political discourses in this country.
What do the candidates for President have to say about chemical hazards? Republicans for the most part have been saying only one thing for the past forty years. They claim that there is too much regulation, that regulation saps businesses of strength and stamina, and that we should have less regulation. The GOP never, ever admits to the growing problem of UNDER-regulation, of the problems which result when chemicals are not tested and properly examined. The Hillary Clinton Democrats thoroughly ignore the issue. Bernie Sanders seems to be receptive toward another point of view, but he is chastised and condemned as being way out and extreme.
What do the candidates for President have to say about chemical hazards? Republicans for the most part have been saying only one thing for the past forty years. They claim that there is too much regulation, that regulation saps businesses of strength and stamina, and that we should have less regulation. The GOP never, ever admits to the growing problem of UNDER-regulation, of the problems which result when chemicals are not tested and properly examined. The Hillary Clinton Democrats thoroughly ignore the issue. Bernie Sanders seems to be receptive toward another point of view, but he is chastised and condemned as being way out and extreme.
7
Of course we and they are contaminating our bodies, its been going on for thousands of years, its called genetic adaption. However, man has taken over to accelerate the contamination not only with chemicals but with genetic engineering, mostly with GMO's. Remember, with GMO's the focus is to produce plants that cannot be over come by pesticides and herbicides, which are increasingly needed to increase crop yields. Essentially the public is being used as guinea pigs, for profit.
4
Yet life spans grown longer?
3
I've been somewhat lucky in life - born into a white middle class family, I was able to earn enough to eat organic foods and then retire to the French countryside where I tend a large organic vegetable garden. So I have had few health problems, none serious. I was also able to control my own reproductive system and did not have any children.
But what about people who work for low or minimum wages? What can they do? And now besides allowing exposure to chemicals, some in our country want to make sure these people have no access to reproductive health services. What will their children and grandchildren suffer? What will happen to our health care system when burdened with all of this avoidable disease?
But what about people who work for low or minimum wages? What can they do? And now besides allowing exposure to chemicals, some in our country want to make sure these people have no access to reproductive health services. What will their children and grandchildren suffer? What will happen to our health care system when burdened with all of this avoidable disease?
13
Marilyn, you and I are the lucky ones...even if we grew up in an era of patriarchy and sexism that limited some of our opportunities, and put hurdles in our pursuits of our passions, talents and competencies. Today's kids are in such danger that I do not even know where to start. I was shocked to find that kids as young as 9 and 10 are suffering from asthma and/or diabetes. Some due to obesity and some without obesity. Girls as young as 7 and 8 are menstruating in Africa, South America and parts of South Asia (due to estrogen in meat and other chemicals in plastic, etc.). There are women in Bangalore (where IT products are everywhere) who are becoming "menopausal" at 25, 30 or 35. My aunts became menopausal in their early 60s and women of my generation in their early or mid 50s.
Infertility is very high in some poor countries and developing nations, and boys in their late teens and early 20s are actually showing less interest in sex than their upper class peers or the older generation. Some are unable to perform even in their late 20s or 30s. Those countries in the Middle East with few industries, except for petroleum industries (segregated to certain isolated neighborhoods where immigrants work long and hard, and are exploited) are places where women are breeding well...but are producing too many sons drawn to Jihadism or extremism. The educated smart sensible women around the world are not breeding, or are unable to breed. It is scary times.
Infertility is very high in some poor countries and developing nations, and boys in their late teens and early 20s are actually showing less interest in sex than their upper class peers or the older generation. Some are unable to perform even in their late 20s or 30s. Those countries in the Middle East with few industries, except for petroleum industries (segregated to certain isolated neighborhoods where immigrants work long and hard, and are exploited) are places where women are breeding well...but are producing too many sons drawn to Jihadism or extremism. The educated smart sensible women around the world are not breeding, or are unable to breed. It is scary times.
7
I agree this is a serious problem, and that our political system is being abused to defend it.
However, the problem is unlike tobacco, at least it is not yet like tobacco.
We did not know what we now know about endocrine disruptors until recently. Our medical knowledge of the endocrine system has been advancing rapidly. Likewise, we did not know about many of the complex effects which determine expression of what is in the DNA. There is probably a lot more that we don't know that we do know about such things.
Tobacco was a stubborn rear-guard action against things we knew perfectly well. It was lies.
There is some of that now with these other chemicals, but it is not so long standing because we did not know until more recently.
This is an important distinction, because we will be learning a lot more. We must not let each new thing learned drag on to be a new abuse like tobacco, not addressed for half a century and more.
The bigger problem is the things we have no yet discovered, or at least don't yet fully understand. As we learn, we must have a way to move the new knowledge into our lives. That is the bigger challenge demonstrated by this situation.
We need new political methods, to move knowledge into practice. For every item we could name now, there will be many, many more before we come even close to "knowing it all" about such risks.
We must not repeat the tobacco fiasco every single time for every one of these to come.
However, the problem is unlike tobacco, at least it is not yet like tobacco.
We did not know what we now know about endocrine disruptors until recently. Our medical knowledge of the endocrine system has been advancing rapidly. Likewise, we did not know about many of the complex effects which determine expression of what is in the DNA. There is probably a lot more that we don't know that we do know about such things.
Tobacco was a stubborn rear-guard action against things we knew perfectly well. It was lies.
There is some of that now with these other chemicals, but it is not so long standing because we did not know until more recently.
This is an important distinction, because we will be learning a lot more. We must not let each new thing learned drag on to be a new abuse like tobacco, not addressed for half a century and more.
The bigger problem is the things we have no yet discovered, or at least don't yet fully understand. As we learn, we must have a way to move the new knowledge into our lives. That is the bigger challenge demonstrated by this situation.
We need new political methods, to move knowledge into practice. For every item we could name now, there will be many, many more before we come even close to "knowing it all" about such risks.
We must not repeat the tobacco fiasco every single time for every one of these to come.
4
We do need to protect ourselves. Which is why we should hold in contempt any member of congress who calls for fewer regulations and guts monitoring agencies. It is not the chemicals that concern me. It is the men in our own congress that advance the chemical companies agenda of less regulation and turning a blind eye.
21
Whatever happened to the supposed banning of Teflon coatings? Some years ago I heard that the Government would ban the use of it but since then, nothing. Governmental regulators in the hands of big corporations. They can't even control tainted Chinese made products for kids. Forget about the adults, we're on our own.
11
I cringe seeing foods heat-sealed and packaged in plastic; beverages served in soft plastic containers--including acidic, carbonated, alcoholic liquids. Plus soaps, shampoos, deodorants, and all the other thousands of products packaged in plastic including intensely strong household products. We deal with plastic out-gassing of our cars, carpets, furniture, in homes and offices. How can we continue to ignore plastic's impact when the fact is we ingest, inhale, and consume it through our skin? And then throw it where it pollutes the environment. This subject is worthy of intense research and public scrutiny. A good start is the 3-part The Body Chemical series by Douglas Fischer reprinted here: http://www.insidebayarea.com/bodyburden/ci_2600911.
11
One point of order- The Federation may only be concerned with Sex Hormones, but endocrine disruptors can mimic any type of hormone in the body.
I personally am Hypothyroid as a result of Autoimmune Thyroiditis and am on Levothyroxine (Synthroid by brand name) as a result. Levothyroxine which was the 55th most commonly ordered Drug in the US in 1981 is now the most commonly ordered drug as of 2014- having gone from 2,269,000 to 23,025,870 in 33 years. That is an amazing increase for a relatively old drug. One wonders how much of the increase is from exposure to the chemicals in our environment.
I would highly recommend the writings of Sandra Steingraber, who holds a Doctorate in Biology from the University of Michigan, on the subject. She has written a book titled Living Downstream: An Ecologist’s Personal Investigation of Cancer and the Environment and a related book Raising Elijah: Protecting Children in an Age of Environmental Crisis. A movie sharing the Living Downstream title was made and is widely available- including purchase or rental on iTunes and possibly Netflix according to a quick search.
I personally am Hypothyroid as a result of Autoimmune Thyroiditis and am on Levothyroxine (Synthroid by brand name) as a result. Levothyroxine which was the 55th most commonly ordered Drug in the US in 1981 is now the most commonly ordered drug as of 2014- having gone from 2,269,000 to 23,025,870 in 33 years. That is an amazing increase for a relatively old drug. One wonders how much of the increase is from exposure to the chemicals in our environment.
I would highly recommend the writings of Sandra Steingraber, who holds a Doctorate in Biology from the University of Michigan, on the subject. She has written a book titled Living Downstream: An Ecologist’s Personal Investigation of Cancer and the Environment and a related book Raising Elijah: Protecting Children in an Age of Environmental Crisis. A movie sharing the Living Downstream title was made and is widely available- including purchase or rental on iTunes and possibly Netflix according to a quick search.
18
Dr. Steingraber is a truly amazing woman.
In addition to the books you mention, she has also been instrumental in educating New Yorkers about the serious dangers of fracking, and we can thank her for educating enough of us that we could stop it before all our water was poisoned.
In addition to the books you mention, she has also been instrumental in educating New Yorkers about the serious dangers of fracking, and we can thank her for educating enough of us that we could stop it before all our water was poisoned.
7
A video Interview by Bill Moyers with Dr. Steingraber from his sorely missed Public TV series is available for free at the Bill Moyers website. Her personal story centers more on Cancer, but includes discussion of endocrine disruptors. I highly recommend it for those who missed it on Moyers & Company.
http://billmoyers.com/segment/sandra-steingrabers-war-on-toxic-trespassers/
http://billmoyers.com/segment/sandra-steingrabers-war-on-toxic-trespassers/
2
It's easy to give pregnant women advice ... harder for them to follow, especially if they are out there trying to make a living. Bearing a healthy child should not require extraordinary measures, especially in this "civilized" nation.
18
This is an excellent article. For those who claim here in the comment section that Mr. Kristof doesn't tell us what should be done, I would say, it is obvious what should be done. The reason we have regulations is exactly to make sure we have safe products especially the ones you can't see what's inside and evaluate when buying them. That's why we need health inspections in restaurants, since patrons can't see what goes on in the kitchen. But alas, we live in an era, that regulations and big governments are slowly becoming curse words, thanks to companies that can afford hiring expensive lobbyists. We are becoming a nation that is capitulating to tsunamis of money coming from the ultra rich and very large corporations, including the chemical industry, creating a system favoring only the sources this tsunami and the worse, is that they make us think we are doing it (alloying this lobbying system and campaign contributions) in the name of freedom of speech.
99
Best is not to get pregnant in the first place. The globe is grotesquely overpopulated in such a way that we slowly are iradicating the human species entirely. In Paris next week we can all see for ourselves that the biggest poisoner and poluter that ever roamed the earth will again obtain unlimited licence to continue their massive destruction.
11
Soy beans and other legumes are proven endocrine disruptors and "organic" is more a marketing ploy to charge higher prices for food that is nutritionally equivalent to "non-organic" food. Many plants have natural pesticides which are often in far higher concentrations than the human applied chemicals. The natural ones can't be washed off. They are part of the plant. I don't doubt that the chemical industry is amoral as is the pharmaceutical industry but it is impossible to prove that something won't cause harm. There is an element of risk in any new product. Ultimately life causes cancer.
12
Of course there are poisonous elements found naturally in nature such as Hemlock and certain mushrooms. But we have adapted to avoid these for the most part. Much of the growing prevalence of autoimmune diseases is believed to be due to modern sanitary methods which prevent exposure of our immune system to naturally found molds, pollens, bacteria and viruses during the first years of life.
But our highly developed immune and endocrine systems have never been given the thousands of years necessary to evolve in order to adapt to the effects of newly introduced chemicals and genetically modified organisms. This is why testing should become mandatory.
But our highly developed immune and endocrine systems have never been given the thousands of years necessary to evolve in order to adapt to the effects of newly introduced chemicals and genetically modified organisms. This is why testing should become mandatory.
5
State your sources please.
1
It's been crystal clear to me, for many years, that insatiable avarice is the engine that drives corporate America, avarice that is so compelling it obliterates any sense of empathy that might exist in the soulless creatures marketing their poisoned products to humanity.
We have become a nation so focused on profit at all costs, that we quickly dismiss reports such as this one, as yet another alarmist campaign, with one agenda or another.
It took decades to expose the conspiracy to hide the deadly effects of smoking, a conspiracy that the cigarette manufacturers were fully committed to, and upon which they spent billions to protect the hundreds of billions they would make, as they sold proven deathly products to whomever would buy, including children.
The same investors in those cigarette companies, are now heavily invested in the manufacture of all manner of consumables, with particular emphasis on food and beverages, the stuff that keeps us alive, except now these products and their containers are laced with contaminants that extend product life enriching the corporations, while they sicken, maim, and kill the consumer.
We never seem to learn, and we excel at forgetting.
We have become a nation so focused on profit at all costs, that we quickly dismiss reports such as this one, as yet another alarmist campaign, with one agenda or another.
It took decades to expose the conspiracy to hide the deadly effects of smoking, a conspiracy that the cigarette manufacturers were fully committed to, and upon which they spent billions to protect the hundreds of billions they would make, as they sold proven deathly products to whomever would buy, including children.
The same investors in those cigarette companies, are now heavily invested in the manufacture of all manner of consumables, with particular emphasis on food and beverages, the stuff that keeps us alive, except now these products and their containers are laced with contaminants that extend product life enriching the corporations, while they sicken, maim, and kill the consumer.
We never seem to learn, and we excel at forgetting.
127
Excellent post, Mr. Farrell. If I may add, I think this "insatiable avarice" you speak of is based on fear. Our nation is rampant with paranoia, and we are forever at odds with each other (example: Civil War 1860-64) and we do not have a collective identity of a national family, but instead are a disparate group of many ethnicities and nationalities fearful of each other.
Until we can evolve into a new sense of our national identity I am afraid will will be fearfully and angrily at each other's throats and trying to rip off the county for all it is worth.
Until we can evolve into a new sense of our national identity I am afraid will will be fearfully and angrily at each other's throats and trying to rip off the county for all it is worth.
9
The love of money is the root of all evil. Not money, the love of it. We are obsessed with extreme wealth which also comes these days with unlimited personal power. Our country was never perfect and has, at times in the past, had some pretty awful aspects in various places but the current widespread fear, hatred and manipulation of people who are poorly educated about the science, the arts and humanities makes us a civilization that is increasing less civilized. At 66, I hardly recognize the USA and a great deal of what I see and hear makes me think, "What is wrong with people? How can they be so blind?"
The purpose of a corporation is to make a profit. As long as the government puts their profit margins above the health and welfare of its citizens (something that has been happening since Reagan) we will all continue to suffer.
Thank you for publishing this article. It isn't new info, but it can never be said too often. I have a great deal of pity for those who defend what the various industries do to delay making things better. To those individuals I say, "You, too, or your family, will suffer the consequences of toxic poisons. Being wealthy or religious won't help you". Please wake up.
The purpose of a corporation is to make a profit. As long as the government puts their profit margins above the health and welfare of its citizens (something that has been happening since Reagan) we will all continue to suffer.
Thank you for publishing this article. It isn't new info, but it can never be said too often. I have a great deal of pity for those who defend what the various industries do to delay making things better. To those individuals I say, "You, too, or your family, will suffer the consequences of toxic poisons. Being wealthy or religious won't help you". Please wake up.
62
Jonathan Baker -- "If I may add, I think this "insatiable avarice" you speak of is based on fear."
I agree. I'd also add that the fear is manufactured, knowingly, deliberately, carefully. We are manipulated with fears by people who know exactly what they are doing.
It give a new meaning to "nothing to fear but fear itself."
I agree. I'd also add that the fear is manufactured, knowingly, deliberately, carefully. We are manipulated with fears by people who know exactly what they are doing.
It give a new meaning to "nothing to fear but fear itself."
10
Several months ago, I decided to look at the ingredients in the Suave shampoo I had been using almost daily for years. When I realized that the only words I recognized were "red," "blue" and "fragrance," I wrote to the company and asked for the results of scientific studies that would confirm the safety of each of the ingredients listed on the bottle. I asked specifically about the safety associated with long-term daily use of the product. The company responded by saying that its shampoo "meets all government safety standards." Unsatisfied with the lack of specificity in Suave's response, I searched the internet for non-toxic shampoos and came across the following: 1 part baking soda to 1 part water rubbed into scalp then rinsed, followed by a little cider vinegar rubbed into the scalp and rinsed. I was so pleased with the results that I haven't used store-bought shampoo in almost four months. Thank you, Mr. Kristof, for making readers aware of the health hazards associated with many common products and of manufacturers' efforts to downplay or conceal the dangers. After reading your column, I'm going to see what other potentially hazardous products I can live without. If more people do the same, perhaps manufacturers that include toxic chemicals in their products will start to listen.
92
It's hardly a company's fault for using a scientifically accurate name on an ingredients label. Pronounce-ability is an extremely poor guide as to whether something is safe or not and really only speaks to the fact that you seem to have missed some important science classes in high school.
4
Vinegar kills weeds and all the grass around them when I use it in the yard, so how much vinegar and in what solution would you recommend? My mother used to rinse our hair with vinegar. Makes it shiny. . .
1
Thank You.
The problem is people want and expect gubmint to tell them what to do.
Its not that way.
The only safe products are those that you research yourself. Your experience multiplied by 200 million would send Proctor and Gamble to the dustbin.
We use homeopathy at home for everything that ails us. The medical, pharmaceutical, agricultural, chemical,Giant Food systems are whats killing us.
Thanks
The problem is people want and expect gubmint to tell them what to do.
Its not that way.
The only safe products are those that you research yourself. Your experience multiplied by 200 million would send Proctor and Gamble to the dustbin.
We use homeopathy at home for everything that ails us. The medical, pharmaceutical, agricultural, chemical,Giant Food systems are whats killing us.
Thanks
1
You want to talk about contaminating women's bodies with drugs?
There has never been a more invasive, unnatural intervention into the female human species as a whole than birth control pills. Only anti-anxiety/depressant pills could compete. How can anyone really be confident that such a severe disruption of a women's natural hormonal balance and rhythms, over such long time periods, to such a huge population, will not cause harmful side effects in at least a significant amount of cases?
The ultimate perfect storm of drug company profit agendas, aligning with women's lib agendas, makes the likelihood of objective science clearing those two formidable hurdles very suspect. We haven't even seen one generation of the women who started this in the 70's go through a full life cycle. There is a significant variety of drugs- and now we talk about suppressing a period entirely. I would wager touching a piece of plastic is a much less severe risk.
"2010 Fifty years after the FDA approval, problems remain: there are currently 1,100 lawsuits pending against Bayer Healthcare Corporation regarding blood clots, heart attacks and strokes allegedly caused by the popular pills Yaz, Yazmin and the generic Ocella." (PBS)
Women all over are downing large amounts of actual endocrine-disrupting chemicals and all you will read about is the danger of eating none organic? Why? Because nothing can make it past the involuntary liberal reflex: Birth control- good. good. None organic- bad. bad.
There has never been a more invasive, unnatural intervention into the female human species as a whole than birth control pills. Only anti-anxiety/depressant pills could compete. How can anyone really be confident that such a severe disruption of a women's natural hormonal balance and rhythms, over such long time periods, to such a huge population, will not cause harmful side effects in at least a significant amount of cases?
The ultimate perfect storm of drug company profit agendas, aligning with women's lib agendas, makes the likelihood of objective science clearing those two formidable hurdles very suspect. We haven't even seen one generation of the women who started this in the 70's go through a full life cycle. There is a significant variety of drugs- and now we talk about suppressing a period entirely. I would wager touching a piece of plastic is a much less severe risk.
"2010 Fifty years after the FDA approval, problems remain: there are currently 1,100 lawsuits pending against Bayer Healthcare Corporation regarding blood clots, heart attacks and strokes allegedly caused by the popular pills Yaz, Yazmin and the generic Ocella." (PBS)
Women all over are downing large amounts of actual endocrine-disrupting chemicals and all you will read about is the danger of eating none organic? Why? Because nothing can make it past the involuntary liberal reflex: Birth control- good. good. None organic- bad. bad.
3
I am a 74-year-old woman who took birth control pills starting in the early 1960s. I also took hormones as I went through menopause. I've been on long-term prednisone treatment twice. The alternative would have been an untreated life-threatening illness. I think there are many women who have taken these drugs and I think I am one who has almost completed a generation since that time and remain cancer free. I agree that we use pesticides too freely and I don't ever reheat foods in plastic containers. I do use plastic spoons and store leftovers in plastic wrap or containers. Too many people freak out when the word "chemicals" is mentioned. As a chemistry teacher friend pointed out, everything in our world is made up of chemicals and people are too quick to jump on hysterical bandwagons with too little real information. Some caution is required but stirring up fears seems to be all too easy.
9
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/13/health/13cons.html
"The first oral contraceptive, approved in 1960, relied on heavy doses of the hormone estrogen...Before long, it was clear.. often led to serious side effects."
Hmm. "Approved" in 1960. Meaning there was certainly a "large body of evidence" from respectable scientists.
"Beginning in the mid-1990s, a series of studies... those using third-generation pills suffered higher rates of venous thrombosis — blood clots... "
How did it get to a stage of approval without the "large body of evidence" from respectable scientists?
Perhaps 1-370/1-1k will get a dangerous blood clot. That's not that small. That's like 1 girl out of every high school. 10x non birth control.
Why is this allowed? You have to dig a bit to get the nefarious answer:
“There may be...clotting with third-generation progestins, but it is far, far less than occurs in pregnancy itself,” said Dr. C"
There it is. Liberal ideology is the ONLY reason despite documented risk it is allowed.
How ridiculous!
There are many women who look at pregnancy as a risk worth taking because of the benefit of a baby. If there is a safe convenient way to avoid pregnancy, okay- if not they would take the risk of pregnancy with the benefit of baby, or suffer the inconvenience of non hormonal methods. But for liberal baby haters birth control must never be inconvenient. So successive generations of women are experimented on like guinea pigs.
But plastic is the issue.
"The first oral contraceptive, approved in 1960, relied on heavy doses of the hormone estrogen...Before long, it was clear.. often led to serious side effects."
Hmm. "Approved" in 1960. Meaning there was certainly a "large body of evidence" from respectable scientists.
"Beginning in the mid-1990s, a series of studies... those using third-generation pills suffered higher rates of venous thrombosis — blood clots... "
How did it get to a stage of approval without the "large body of evidence" from respectable scientists?
Perhaps 1-370/1-1k will get a dangerous blood clot. That's not that small. That's like 1 girl out of every high school. 10x non birth control.
Why is this allowed? You have to dig a bit to get the nefarious answer:
“There may be...clotting with third-generation progestins, but it is far, far less than occurs in pregnancy itself,” said Dr. C"
There it is. Liberal ideology is the ONLY reason despite documented risk it is allowed.
How ridiculous!
There are many women who look at pregnancy as a risk worth taking because of the benefit of a baby. If there is a safe convenient way to avoid pregnancy, okay- if not they would take the risk of pregnancy with the benefit of baby, or suffer the inconvenience of non hormonal methods. But for liberal baby haters birth control must never be inconvenient. So successive generations of women are experimented on like guinea pigs.
But plastic is the issue.
2
@P.S.
Over and over and over again allegedly "safe" drugs, drugs that have been studied for "years" by objective scientists, are found to be dangerous. Advil is only one of the latest examples. The new warnings of blood clots for several VERY popular birth controls is another.
At a certain point you take a step back and see a common pattern. It is very hard to "cheat" the human body's natural reactions without significant risk. It's almost as if our bodies knew the tradeoff and we are cashing in on the easier, but less safe routes that it avoided. Birth control is the ultimate "cheat."
It is impossible to avoid risk in life, but in a general sense one should avoid unnatural interventions. There is always going to be a risk/benefit analysis. But if we want to have an honest discussion about the risks that women are taking with their bodies, and whether there should be a more rigorous checks and balances to safeguard the safety of those risks, I think that birth control is much higher up on the list than touching plastic and eating a non organic cucumbers while pregnant.
The militaristic safeguarding of these cherished liberal miracle drugs, along with massive corporate profits, makes scientific objectivity suspect. All the comforting buzz words of "designed to mimic" and "large body of evidence" have all been applied to many drugs that have ultimately been found to pose significant risks.
I think honest concern about my wife's health is reasonable and not meddling.
Over and over and over again allegedly "safe" drugs, drugs that have been studied for "years" by objective scientists, are found to be dangerous. Advil is only one of the latest examples. The new warnings of blood clots for several VERY popular birth controls is another.
At a certain point you take a step back and see a common pattern. It is very hard to "cheat" the human body's natural reactions without significant risk. It's almost as if our bodies knew the tradeoff and we are cashing in on the easier, but less safe routes that it avoided. Birth control is the ultimate "cheat."
It is impossible to avoid risk in life, but in a general sense one should avoid unnatural interventions. There is always going to be a risk/benefit analysis. But if we want to have an honest discussion about the risks that women are taking with their bodies, and whether there should be a more rigorous checks and balances to safeguard the safety of those risks, I think that birth control is much higher up on the list than touching plastic and eating a non organic cucumbers while pregnant.
The militaristic safeguarding of these cherished liberal miracle drugs, along with massive corporate profits, makes scientific objectivity suspect. All the comforting buzz words of "designed to mimic" and "large body of evidence" have all been applied to many drugs that have ultimately been found to pose significant risks.
I think honest concern about my wife's health is reasonable and not meddling.
1
unfortunately Mr. Kristof is purporting more fear than reality. The paradox is that all chemicals will kill you and EVERYTHING is a chemical. what Mr. Kristof and others who write along these lines do not do is tell us what should be done. how much testing is enough? what exactly should we test for and would you, in the end, pay for something that went through true scientific rigor? What if this took ten years? how many advancements or innovations would we see? Scientists are working on ways of predicting toxicity before chemical are synthesized, but the data is pretty scarce since it is difficult to correlate and verify long term effects of a specific chemical unless it also has shown to have acute negative effects . In a perfect world, we would know these answers, but we do not live in a perfect world. How many people overexpose themselves by choice to the sun? or alcohol? Both shown to be very toxic to the body both in the short and long term? In the end, i am saying that we need regulation, improved scientific methods and models but not more fear mongering. Good luck trying to live in a world of fear.
17
There's a difference between fear and a prudence prompted by people who spend a lifetime studying a specific element of our modern life, a specific element that is man made and can be controlled with the blessing of an informed public. To project hysteria on a qualified messenger is a straw man argument and, given the emerging evidence, sneering at people's concern doesn't help solve the issue one bit.
17
"In fact, most are assumed to be safe unless proved otherwise."
Since proving something will not cause any harm is impossible, given the fact that no experiment can possibly cover every possibility, that is the only way proceeding is possible. Further, it is the job of those wishing to ban a substance to give reasons why they should, not those who want it on the market.
That being said, there is, I agree, mounting evidence that some of these chemicals ARE harmful and should be pulled.
Since proving something will not cause any harm is impossible, given the fact that no experiment can possibly cover every possibility, that is the only way proceeding is possible. Further, it is the job of those wishing to ban a substance to give reasons why they should, not those who want it on the market.
That being said, there is, I agree, mounting evidence that some of these chemicals ARE harmful and should be pulled.
13
It is easy (and not wrong) to blame industry and politicians but the scientific community (with honourable exceptions, including those quoted) should also take responsibility. It is who the public looks to for independent verification of claims but only now are a few of its institutions beginning to speak up: http://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/why-the-united-states-leave...
6
Of all the domestic activities performed by the federal government, the oversight and regulation of businesses that might intentionally (e.g., pesticides, herbicides), inadvertently (current data find safe) or accidentally (leaks, spills, etc.) introduce harmful substances into the environment should be something everyone across the political spectrum would be able to endorse.
Even with present regulations, tobacco smoke, organochlorines, heavy metals, dioxins, fossil fuels, and so on keep spewing throughout our planet Earth. The song, "Where Have All the Flowers Gone" comes to mind but with a new meaning.
Even with present regulations, tobacco smoke, organochlorines, heavy metals, dioxins, fossil fuels, and so on keep spewing throughout our planet Earth. The song, "Where Have All the Flowers Gone" comes to mind but with a new meaning.
78
You say eat organic. Fair enough, but are organic foods properly regulated? Do we know that they are better than non-organic food?
18
We know that "organic" foods have fewer pesticide and other chemical contaminants. The do not have zero amounts of these things for two main reasons: residual contamination of the soil even after farmers have begun to use organic farming methods and transmission of chemical residues by wind and water. Nutritionally, organic and non-organic foods are comparable, with the main differences being the varieties of fruits and vegetables and the time they have spent in transit, in warehouses, or on the shelf at the grocer.
1
As a holistic gynecologist in NYC, it is frustrating to observe the inordinate burden placed on the public to research for themselves and avoid toxic substances when our policies should instead be regulating them. When mainstream professional organizations representing obgyns, endocrinologists, oncologists and pain management specialists agree that many known and commonly used toxic and endocrine disrupting chemicals cause cancer, birth defects, and infertility, it is essential that policy follow suit, rather than succumbing to the influence of industry. In the meantime, I will continue to educate my patients, and will direct them to this article.
422
Can Congress be sued for knowingly refusing to protect its citizens' health in exchange for bribes from the chemical companies? Are the members immune from liability when they refuse to act responsibly?
223
They are pretty much immune while doing what they do in office, absent proof of corruption in the form of quid pro quo for payments.
Congress has granted itself legal immunity even if it acts negligently or deliberately. Refusing to act makes them bulletproof. 'Nuf said.
1
The liability they have is to be voted out when they don't do their job.
That doesn't seem to be happening nearly enough.
That doesn't seem to be happening nearly enough.
2
Only when we take back our government from the wealthy corporate interests will the laws begin to benefit the people. Corporation such as the chemical manufacturers simply buy politicians who then resist making laws that might damage the profits of the chemical and other corporate entities.
281
"Take back our government"
One almost impossible proposition, at this juncture.
I blame all of us, even when we thought we were awake, we were asleep at the wheel, driving ourselves to the edge of the abyss, which is where we now are, about to fall in.
Many of us saw Obama as an opportunity to reverse from the edge, but if we had done our homework, instead of following yet another false prophet, we might have had a chance.
I'm one of those followers as well, twice, much to my chagrin.
Today Burnie Sanders appears to be the only hope, I say appears because I truly don't know if he is for real, or just another charlatan.
We need an honest to goodness movement in this nation, one that cannot be co-opted, to find an Eisenhower type, a man or woman who will sally into the fray, and refuse to acquiesce to any special interest.
Only then will we start to take back our government, and you can bet the fight will be historic.
One almost impossible proposition, at this juncture.
I blame all of us, even when we thought we were awake, we were asleep at the wheel, driving ourselves to the edge of the abyss, which is where we now are, about to fall in.
Many of us saw Obama as an opportunity to reverse from the edge, but if we had done our homework, instead of following yet another false prophet, we might have had a chance.
I'm one of those followers as well, twice, much to my chagrin.
Today Burnie Sanders appears to be the only hope, I say appears because I truly don't know if he is for real, or just another charlatan.
We need an honest to goodness movement in this nation, one that cannot be co-opted, to find an Eisenhower type, a man or woman who will sally into the fray, and refuse to acquiesce to any special interest.
Only then will we start to take back our government, and you can bet the fight will be historic.
4
Mike you have hit the nail on the head.
2
And who, eventually, will be alive to "enjoy" these profits? I know someone who had to sell her townhome when the association put new siding on it. She could not live inside the new insulating cover that was installed. For me, it was a carpet pad and a new sofa. I thought I was going to die before I figured out what it was. Why do we need chemicals in receipt paper? Who profits from this? What I find most disturbing is how a seemingly large group of people could not care less how they get their millions and what it is doing to others.
2
The fundamental question here is how do well-informed and good-intentioned citizens help create necessary change in a society in which such a big swatch of the population has an anti-regulation and anti-government ideology and an abiding faith in a market economy providing optimal outcomes, and at the same time there exists an electoral system that is highly influenced by special interest money. Whether it's tobacco, chemicals, guns, pollution, or other things that negatively impact quality of life, as well as length of life, change happens far too slowly in the face of such powerful resistance to implementing reasonable restrictions and controls. It's disheartening to see that the Internet age has not succeeded to any great extent in making citizens better informed and smarter but instead has provided more opportunities for people and entities with their own self-serving agendas to reach and influence those who are gullible, ignorant, and naive.
323
JUST FOLLOW THE MONEY . . .
If there were profits to be made from including poison in a product ... which had the potential to cause serious harm or death ... just bring in the lobbyists or the clowns.
That's capitalism and the Conservatives complain about far too much regulation ...wouldn't you say?
Think: global warming is called a hoax and the tobacco industry claiming that there was no proof of a casual relationship between smoking cigarettes and health concerns, early morbidity and addiction.
If there were profits to be made from including poison in a product ... which had the potential to cause serious harm or death ... just bring in the lobbyists or the clowns.
That's capitalism and the Conservatives complain about far too much regulation ...wouldn't you say?
Think: global warming is called a hoax and the tobacco industry claiming that there was no proof of a casual relationship between smoking cigarettes and health concerns, early morbidity and addiction.
27
We need to recognize that the GOP is now the pro cancer party. Pushing back chem industry regulations, undercutting public health programs, promoting falsehoods about vaccinations, defunding the EPA, these established GOP policies all result in increased cancer rates and deaths. Anyone who has experienced a cancer death in their family yet still votes for Republican Party candidates should check the brand of the kool-aid thev've been drinking.
310
pro-cancer party - I'm going to remember that one. Good point.
10
Like so many things, this is a national travesty. The government has been bought, and so all we can do is protect ourselves as much as we can. True, self-protection impossible in certain cases. It's difficult to avoid flame retardants since most are required by the government. If you live near the Canadian border, go to IKEA there rather than the US. The other problem is that some things end up in water systems or public places (e.g., schools) that we can't control. Nevertheless, I appreciate your publicizing this issue. Yor should also look into the dangers of wireless, where the evidence is less conclusive, but still quite troubling, and the industry's power to supress it is even greater. See www.bioinitiative.org
44
I don't know about states other than California, but with a doctor's prescription, you can go to a mattress factory and have a mattress custom-made without antimony or other chemicals. The cost is about the same as ready-made.
41
Dear God no! Don't see (or see, but don't believe) bioinitiative. This is one topic that really has been thoroughly, thoroughly researched and thoroughly, thoroughly debunked. The ones making a living off this are the purveyors of fear at bioinitiative and their ilk. Power lines, microwaves, cellphones, electromagnetic signals everywhere, cancer clusters, child cancers, cancer everywhere so it must be coming from the signals, right? - absolutely, thoroughly refuted, again and again, by massive, massive epidemiological studies as well as completely unsuccessful attempts to identify any conceivable physical mechanism for this cacophony of weak signals to do us harm. Save your efforts for the chemicals that really do harm us.
18
Fortunately there has been improvement on the chemical flame retardant front; As of Jan. 1 2015, several major manufacturers are no longer using them in furniture. I am following Arlene Blum's work on this; she is now moving on to other classes of chemicals as well. Also I just bought a bed that has organic wool as the flame retardant, and no prescription was necessary.
More generally I agree, it is all a national travesty. The best case scenario now is the whole nation gets safer furniture, but how many have the knowledge and resources to do so? And what is haunting me is: Where is all this poisoned stuff going to end up? Years and years of carcinogenic stuffing and batting and upholstery: It will inevitably be in a landfill, then soil and water ... Not only harming humans, but millions of other species. We need national days of mourning over these things, and IMMEDIATE CHANGE.
More generally I agree, it is all a national travesty. The best case scenario now is the whole nation gets safer furniture, but how many have the knowledge and resources to do so? And what is haunting me is: Where is all this poisoned stuff going to end up? Years and years of carcinogenic stuffing and batting and upholstery: It will inevitably be in a landfill, then soil and water ... Not only harming humans, but millions of other species. We need national days of mourning over these things, and IMMEDIATE CHANGE.
1
Remember the old saying from the 1960s, "Profits, not people." It's still true. Won't get any better since corporations own the country.
98
Yep, if " it's good for business", you can bet it's bad for people.
1
Birth control pills ARE endocrine disruptors; that's why they work. Long-term use has been linked to breast cancer, but most women of child-bearing age and participating in sexual relationships would rather risk breast cancer than risk having many children for whom they cannot afford to provide, not to mention that mothers in this country are effectively punished as far as careers are concerned.
To promote the consumption of organic foods over the consumption of chemically-fertilized food with no detectable chemical residue is irresponsible, and frankly, less safe, particularly if the organic food, some of which is fertilized with animal waste, is to be consumed raw. Insist on organics if you will, but expect more incidents like the shutdown of several Chipotle restaurants due to E Coli, something that happened ironically just after the company trumpeted its switch to organic ingredients only. Organic is an example of the the alternative sometimes being worse, and E Coli can kill or disable a person very quickly. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.
To promote the consumption of organic foods over the consumption of chemically-fertilized food with no detectable chemical residue is irresponsible, and frankly, less safe, particularly if the organic food, some of which is fertilized with animal waste, is to be consumed raw. Insist on organics if you will, but expect more incidents like the shutdown of several Chipotle restaurants due to E Coli, something that happened ironically just after the company trumpeted its switch to organic ingredients only. Organic is an example of the the alternative sometimes being worse, and E Coli can kill or disable a person very quickly. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.
17
CM,
When people think of organic produce, they think of small farms and a family that grows the food in their grocery carts.
Organic is most often big business and as free from real oversight as any other industry, from chem companies that dump into the water supply in West Virginia, to defective Tylenol for babies sold at hundreds of times the dosage and bought back in secret by the distributor, to Volkswagen cheating on emissions, to the criminal who manufactured peanut butter in a filthy plant. Organic is not an invitation not to use best practices for hygiene.
"Organic" is only as good as the honesty of those who produce it.
When people think of organic produce, they think of small farms and a family that grows the food in their grocery carts.
Organic is most often big business and as free from real oversight as any other industry, from chem companies that dump into the water supply in West Virginia, to defective Tylenol for babies sold at hundreds of times the dosage and bought back in secret by the distributor, to Volkswagen cheating on emissions, to the criminal who manufactured peanut butter in a filthy plant. Organic is not an invitation not to use best practices for hygiene.
"Organic" is only as good as the honesty of those who produce it.
62
@Rima: Organic foodstuffs have not been proven any healthier than non-organics, and are sometimes much less desirable. In making my Thanksgiving dinner, I shopped at my local Whole Foods, where the only celery available appeared to be an organically grown vegetable that had extremely thin, shorter, and blemished stalks. As the celery was intended for the stuffing and was to be cooked, I decided to purchase it anyway. When I had finished cutting off the blemished area, I found that I had discarded nearly half of my purchase that had cost twice as much as a conventionally-grown bunch of celery. While I don't oppose others right to purchase organics as they see fit, that type of farming is simply not productive enough to feed all of the hungry people in our world. In addition, I believe the government's statement that organics are not any healthier than nonorganics, and I think we will see, a couple of decades down the road, that those consuming organics exclusively have really just wasted their money.
16
CM,
"Organic foodstuffs have not been proven any healthier than non-organics, and are sometimes much less desirable."
That is because we know little to nothing about the conditions they're grown in, and that includes everything from the water, soil, and everything else the produce is exposed to as it is being shipped to market. Whether it is the soil is contaminated by what the neighboring farms do, or what might be in the water, then it doesn't matter how careful that farmer is. I cannot imagine how food that is truly free of chemicals, for example, might not hold advantage over food that is not.
As far as cost... The cost of obesity, child and adult, in money and lives not lived well alone is worth making an effort to clean up our food supply. Add in all of the cancers and other disorders we are seeing so much of. There is no excuse for negligence. There is even less for negligence made legal through greed.
"Organic foodstuffs have not been proven any healthier than non-organics, and are sometimes much less desirable."
That is because we know little to nothing about the conditions they're grown in, and that includes everything from the water, soil, and everything else the produce is exposed to as it is being shipped to market. Whether it is the soil is contaminated by what the neighboring farms do, or what might be in the water, then it doesn't matter how careful that farmer is. I cannot imagine how food that is truly free of chemicals, for example, might not hold advantage over food that is not.
As far as cost... The cost of obesity, child and adult, in money and lives not lived well alone is worth making an effort to clean up our food supply. Add in all of the cancers and other disorders we are seeing so much of. There is no excuse for negligence. There is even less for negligence made legal through greed.
15
We are a nation in the midst of a crisis of ethics at the heart of which lies money in politics. While corporate snake oil has always existed in one form or another in American, things took a definite turn after 1962 and the publication of Milton Friedman's book**, Capitalism and Freedom. Money in politics has been used, over decades, to whittle down the power of government to regulate the goods and services that every day Americans need to be made safely. At first, the effort was in reducing the impact of regulations through the relaxation of rules. But, since the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, the fight has moved from merely dampening the effect of regulations to suffocating government.
2016 may well be the last election in which American citizens are able to effect meaningful change. Choose your candidates wisely! Electing the right president is only one half of the battle to reclaim Democracy. The other half of that battle, just as crucial, is to elect a Congress that will work with our president as intended, for the people and by the people - not for the oligarchs and plutocrats. The contamination of our bodies is irrevocably tied to the contamination of our politics and everything it affects. Only only resolute voters can fix this.
---
From Milton Friedman to Ronald Dworkin: http://www.rimaregas.com/2015/09/from-milton-friedman-to-ronald-dworkin-...
News roundup http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-1Mi
2016 may well be the last election in which American citizens are able to effect meaningful change. Choose your candidates wisely! Electing the right president is only one half of the battle to reclaim Democracy. The other half of that battle, just as crucial, is to elect a Congress that will work with our president as intended, for the people and by the people - not for the oligarchs and plutocrats. The contamination of our bodies is irrevocably tied to the contamination of our politics and everything it affects. Only only resolute voters can fix this.
---
From Milton Friedman to Ronald Dworkin: http://www.rimaregas.com/2015/09/from-milton-friedman-to-ronald-dworkin-...
News roundup http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-1Mi
345
Another common tactic is to strangle to regulatory agency by blocking nominations of key personnel, restricting the use of Federal Funds so that they cannot follow where the science leads, forced contracting out of work on the low bid instead of doing it in house with best practices.
An example of the effects of such Congressional actions include the recent toxic spill on the Animas River which was widely reported to be an "EPA" spill. The damage was actually caused by the actions of a private contractor- not EPA staff.
An example of the effects of such Congressional actions include the recent toxic spill on the Animas River which was widely reported to be an "EPA" spill. The damage was actually caused by the actions of a private contractor- not EPA staff.
13
RIMA, you're the best. Thank you for your contributions here. I will be looking into your website. Keep up The Voice of Reason.
2
Agreed. It began with fluoridation - a mass medication of the public based on a medical hypothesis that although discredited (fluoride inhibits enzymes as well as normal hormone function, so brushing with it will deter cavities although drinking it has no dental benefit.) Fluoridationists, like the leaded gasoline, tobacco and GMO industries, learned to "market" their product by dismissing logical arguments, denying real science, and denigrating opposition.
1