The Great American 'Toxic Chemical' Experiment
Lax regulation of toxic chemicals turns us all into human guinea pigs.
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.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
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.
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.