SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
The Great American 'Toxic Chemical' Experiment
Lax regulation of toxic chemicals turns us all into human guinea pigs.
Mar 19, 2014
Why are these numbers so far apart? Is it because lab animals' brains are more feeble and susceptible to chemicals than ours?
No. It's because we can conduct experiments by feeding mercury, lead, and arsenic to rats to find out what happens to their brains. It's unethical to do so in humans.
Unfortunately, that's exactly what we're doing -- just not in a lab.
Without the capability to conduct a lab experiment on humans, we've got a few ways to find out exactly which chemicals are bad for our brains.
Typically, most of us are exposed to low levels of a wide variety of the chemicals in our lives -- from paint, carpet, food, food containers, air, water, and more. If, after 60 years, you get sick, it's hard to say what caused it.
Sometimes the harm can be much more subtle, like the loss of a few IQ points in a child who was exposed to a chemical before birth.
The exception is usually when a group of people is exposed day after day to high doses of a chemical on the job. When they all become acutely ill, it's obvious there's a problem. The cause is fairly easy to track down.
This method works for adults -- resulting in the discovery of 214 neurotoxicants in humans -- but not in developing fetuses and infants.
To find the dozen chemicals that harm the youngest brains, scientists compare exposure levels among a group of babies while still in the womb and then track their growth in their early years. Only by comparing them to one another, scientists can detect which chemicals cause problems.
For example, one study tested pregnant mothers for levels of a pesticide, chlorpyrifos, and then followed their children for many years. They linked chlorpyrifos exposure to reduced head circumference at birth and neurobehavioral problems that lasted at least seven years.
These studies recognize that we're all being used as human guinea pigs.
Back to my first point: We know darn well that over 1,000 chemicals harm the brains of animals -- and animals' bodies are not all that different from ours. About half of the chemicals on this list are chemicals that are in our industrial solvents, pesticides, flame retardants, and other common products.
What's our current approach? Just keep using them. Move along, everyone, until scientists can prove beyond a doubt that a specific chemical made a specific person sick.
Trying to steer clear of dangerous chemicals can drive you crazy. Just try to discover which products in your life contain chemicals that are toxic to you or your kids, and how you can find non-toxic replacements for them. It's hard not to grow exasperated and give up.
And as a society, we should theoretically have more control over the process of identifying and banning toxic chemicals. But the federal law that regulates them, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, has no teeth.
Corporations don't even have to test their products for toxicity before putting them on the market. And the government has a very limited ability to prevent toxic chemicals from being sold. Why?
Why do we prioritize a corporation's right to make money over the right of our citizens to be healthy?
People, particularly children and the unborn, shouldn't be guinea pigs.
Corporations should be required to prove their products' safety before they are allowed to sell them.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. US voters have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. If you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
This column was distributed by OtherWords.
Jill Richardson
Jill Richardson is pursuing a PhD in sociology at UW-Madison, where she studies natural resources and the environment.
Why are these numbers so far apart? Is it because lab animals' brains are more feeble and susceptible to chemicals than ours?
No. It's because we can conduct experiments by feeding mercury, lead, and arsenic to rats to find out what happens to their brains. It's unethical to do so in humans.
Unfortunately, that's exactly what we're doing -- just not in a lab.
Without the capability to conduct a lab experiment on humans, we've got a few ways to find out exactly which chemicals are bad for our brains.
Typically, most of us are exposed to low levels of a wide variety of the chemicals in our lives -- from paint, carpet, food, food containers, air, water, and more. If, after 60 years, you get sick, it's hard to say what caused it.
Sometimes the harm can be much more subtle, like the loss of a few IQ points in a child who was exposed to a chemical before birth.
The exception is usually when a group of people is exposed day after day to high doses of a chemical on the job. When they all become acutely ill, it's obvious there's a problem. The cause is fairly easy to track down.
This method works for adults -- resulting in the discovery of 214 neurotoxicants in humans -- but not in developing fetuses and infants.
To find the dozen chemicals that harm the youngest brains, scientists compare exposure levels among a group of babies while still in the womb and then track their growth in their early years. Only by comparing them to one another, scientists can detect which chemicals cause problems.
For example, one study tested pregnant mothers for levels of a pesticide, chlorpyrifos, and then followed their children for many years. They linked chlorpyrifos exposure to reduced head circumference at birth and neurobehavioral problems that lasted at least seven years.
These studies recognize that we're all being used as human guinea pigs.
Back to my first point: We know darn well that over 1,000 chemicals harm the brains of animals -- and animals' bodies are not all that different from ours. About half of the chemicals on this list are chemicals that are in our industrial solvents, pesticides, flame retardants, and other common products.
What's our current approach? Just keep using them. Move along, everyone, until scientists can prove beyond a doubt that a specific chemical made a specific person sick.
Trying to steer clear of dangerous chemicals can drive you crazy. Just try to discover which products in your life contain chemicals that are toxic to you or your kids, and how you can find non-toxic replacements for them. It's hard not to grow exasperated and give up.
And as a society, we should theoretically have more control over the process of identifying and banning toxic chemicals. But the federal law that regulates them, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, has no teeth.
Corporations don't even have to test their products for toxicity before putting them on the market. And the government has a very limited ability to prevent toxic chemicals from being sold. Why?
Why do we prioritize a corporation's right to make money over the right of our citizens to be healthy?
People, particularly children and the unborn, shouldn't be guinea pigs.
Corporations should be required to prove their products' safety before they are allowed to sell them.
Jill Richardson
Jill Richardson is pursuing a PhD in sociology at UW-Madison, where she studies natural resources and the environment.
Why are these numbers so far apart? Is it because lab animals' brains are more feeble and susceptible to chemicals than ours?
No. It's because we can conduct experiments by feeding mercury, lead, and arsenic to rats to find out what happens to their brains. It's unethical to do so in humans.
Unfortunately, that's exactly what we're doing -- just not in a lab.
Without the capability to conduct a lab experiment on humans, we've got a few ways to find out exactly which chemicals are bad for our brains.
Typically, most of us are exposed to low levels of a wide variety of the chemicals in our lives -- from paint, carpet, food, food containers, air, water, and more. If, after 60 years, you get sick, it's hard to say what caused it.
Sometimes the harm can be much more subtle, like the loss of a few IQ points in a child who was exposed to a chemical before birth.
The exception is usually when a group of people is exposed day after day to high doses of a chemical on the job. When they all become acutely ill, it's obvious there's a problem. The cause is fairly easy to track down.
This method works for adults -- resulting in the discovery of 214 neurotoxicants in humans -- but not in developing fetuses and infants.
To find the dozen chemicals that harm the youngest brains, scientists compare exposure levels among a group of babies while still in the womb and then track their growth in their early years. Only by comparing them to one another, scientists can detect which chemicals cause problems.
For example, one study tested pregnant mothers for levels of a pesticide, chlorpyrifos, and then followed their children for many years. They linked chlorpyrifos exposure to reduced head circumference at birth and neurobehavioral problems that lasted at least seven years.
These studies recognize that we're all being used as human guinea pigs.
Back to my first point: We know darn well that over 1,000 chemicals harm the brains of animals -- and animals' bodies are not all that different from ours. About half of the chemicals on this list are chemicals that are in our industrial solvents, pesticides, flame retardants, and other common products.
What's our current approach? Just keep using them. Move along, everyone, until scientists can prove beyond a doubt that a specific chemical made a specific person sick.
Trying to steer clear of dangerous chemicals can drive you crazy. Just try to discover which products in your life contain chemicals that are toxic to you or your kids, and how you can find non-toxic replacements for them. It's hard not to grow exasperated and give up.
And as a society, we should theoretically have more control over the process of identifying and banning toxic chemicals. But the federal law that regulates them, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, has no teeth.
Corporations don't even have to test their products for toxicity before putting them on the market. And the government has a very limited ability to prevent toxic chemicals from being sold. Why?
Why do we prioritize a corporation's right to make money over the right of our citizens to be healthy?
People, particularly children and the unborn, shouldn't be guinea pigs.
Corporations should be required to prove their products' safety before they are allowed to sell them.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy