|
Chapter 2 They wouldn’t sell it if it wasn’t safe . . . would they? When we
pick up a product at the local supermarket, most of us like to think we are
getting something that has been tested and proven to be safe. After all, we
have laws to protect our health and safety, don’t we? Actually, governments
in In the
last 50 years, mankind has created around 80,000 new chemicals. They are in
use all around us – in products ranging from pesticides to cosmetics and baby
bottles to computers. Our 21st century society depends on them. However,
this reliance on chemicals comes at a price, as many chemicals have hazardous
properties. The manufacture, storage, transport, application and use of
chemicals in consumer products can result in their release into the
environment, whether that be into rivers, the sea, soil, the atmosphere or
the air in our homes. The presence of chemicals in air, water, food or in
consumer products means that people can become exposed to them via such
routes as ingestion, inhalation and absorption through the skin. Some
chemicals are particularly persistent (meaning they stay around in the
environment for a long time and do not break down) and bio-accumulative
(meaning they build-up over time in living things).
Others are endocrine disrupting – meaning they interfere with hormone
systems. The costs
to society of exposure to man-made hazardous chemicals are largely being
ignored. Little research is being done into the causes of diseases and
conditions in which chemicals are implicated. Allergies, asthma, behavioural
problems, diabetes, obesity and increases in various male reproductive problems,
such as falling sperm counts, are all of great concern, but chemicals are
rarely studied or considered to be the culprit. Over the
last year, the European Union has been debating a new law that aims to
regulate the multi-billion pound chemical industry. By the end of 2006 this
new law, known as REACH (Regulation, Evaluation and Authorisation of
Chemicals), will be voted on for the final time. But major corporations are
resisting the move to make them more responsible for substituting safer
chemicals in their products and some industry sources predict that it will be
11 years or more before the new legislation has any practical effect. In the
meantime, here are some disturbing facts: • A
product that kills 50% of lab animals through ingestion or inhalation can
still receive the federal regulatory designation “non-toxic” in the • Of the
17,000 chemicals that appear in common household products, only 30% have been
adequately tested for their negative effects on our health; less than 10%
have been tested for their effect on the nervous system; and virtually nothing
is known about the combined effects of these chemicals when mixed within our
bodies. • No law
requires manufacturers to list the exact ingredients on the package label. • The
National • 884 of the chemicals were toxic • 314 caused biological mutation • 218 caused reproductive complications • 778 caused acute toxicity • 148 caused tumors • 376 caused skin and eye irritations. WARNING: You can’t trust warning labels! You may
think you know what is in a product and its potential harms by reading
ingredient and warning labels. Think again. Manufacturers are not required to
list the exact ingredients on the label. Also, chemical names are often
disguised by using innocuous “trade names.” So even if the chemical is listed
on the label, you may not recognize it for what it is. Even if
the harsh and dangerous active ingredients are listed on a package, often
times the remainder of ingredients are lumped into a category known as
“inert” (not active) ingredients. This term may lead you to believe that
these chemicals are not toxic or hazardous. In fact, many of the 1,000
different chemicals used as inert ingredients are more harmful than the
active ingredients. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
does not require manufacturers to identify most inert chemicals, or disclose
their potential harmful effects. Even suspected carcinogens (cancer-causing
agents) are used as inert ingredients in household products. Regarding
warning labels, one study found that 85% of products they examined had
incorrect warning labels. Some were labelled poisonous, but weren’t; others
were poisonous, but not labelled as such; others gave incorrect first aid
information. And there are absolutely no warnings on products about possible
negative effects of long-term exposure. This is unfortunate because most
diseases linked to chemical exposure are the result of long-term exposure. If we
don’t know what’s in it, and we don’t know if it can hurt us, how are we
supposed to make an intelligent decision about whether or not to bring this
product into our home? Why aren’t manufacturers required to test these chemicals? As we’ve
already discussed, governments have very limited power to regulate
manufacturers, or require testing of their products. The EU
has admitted that 99 per cent of the volume of chemicals on
the market are inadequately regulated. Of The
reason has to do with economics and politics. It takes dozens of years and
hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds to fully test one chemical.
If the government were to require every manufacturer to test every product
and prove that it is safe, many manufacturers would be forced to go out of business, and our products would cost about twice as much
as they currently do. Besides, who do you think they would test these
chemicals on anyway? That’s right—animals. All this
would cause a lose-lose situation for politicians.
Manufacturers would be angry at them for imposing the expensive testing. And
the public would be angry at them for requiring manufacturers to torture and
kill all those animals, and for driving the prices of household products
through the roof! Even
though an EU committee has recently endorsed tough
new laws on chemicals, this is very much against the wishes of industry and
European ministers and a chemicals industry group has warned of
"pointless red tape". Estimates
are that some 30,000 chemicals would need to be registered and this would
take at least 11 years with a cost to the industry of over 5 Billion Euros -
a burden that manufacturers are certain to try to avoid and can therefore be
expected to use all the delaying tactics they can. Animal rights campaigners
are already up in arms about the estimates of at least one million more
animal tests which are predicted to be required as part of the assessment of
chemical risks to humans. It seems likely that any real change by existing
manufacturers towards using safe and naturally-occurring chemical substitutes
in their consumer products is a long way off. Even if a
chemical has been tested and found to be harmful, you still may not get the
truth from a manufacturer. Just look how long it took the tobacco industry to
finally admit cigarettes are addictive and cause cancer. Do not wait for any
company to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds to confirm that their
product definitely causes cancer, eczema or asthma. Let’s exercise our rights
as informed consumers and choose manufacturers who already make products with
safer, more natural ingredients. |