Using everyday personal health care products every day isn't as innocent as the sunshine-filled commercials that tout them make it seem.
For those that didn't make the lecture I attended in February on the subject, there was an article ("Think Those Chemicals Have Been Tested?") in The New York Times over the weekend that covered the same territory. Here are the first nine paragraphs, which will hopefully spur you to visit the Environmental Working Group's Guideto Healthy Cleaning database and its Skin Deep Cosmetics database.
"Many Americans assume that the chemicals in their shampoos, detergents and other consumer products have been thoroughly tested and proved to be safe.
"This assumption is wrong.
"Unlike pharmaceuticals or pesticides, industrial chemicals do not have to be tested before they are put on the market. Under the law regulating chemicals, producers are only rarely required to provide the federal government with the information necessary to assess safety."Regulators, doctors, environmentalists and the chemical industry agree that the country’s main chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, needs fixing. It is the only major environmental statute whose core provisions have not been reauthorized or substantively updated since its adoption in the 1970s. They do not agree, however, on who should have to prove that a chemical is safe."Currently this burden rests almost entirely on the federal government. Companies have to alert the Environmental Protection Agency before manufacturing or importing new chemicals. But then it is the E.P.A.’s job to review academic or industry data, or use computer modeling, to determine whether a new chemical poses risks. Companies are not required to provide any safety data when they notify the agency about a new chemical, and they rarely do it voluntarily, although the E.P.A. can later request data if it can show there is a potential risk. If the E.P.A. does not take steps to block the new chemical within 90 days or suspend review until a company provides any requested data, the chemical is by default given a green light."The law puts federal authorities in a bind. 'It’s the worst kind of Catch-22,' said Dr. Richard Denison, senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund. 'Under this law, the E.P.A. can’t even require testing to determine whether a risk exists without first showing a risk is likely.'”"As a result, the overwhelming majority of chemicals in use today have never been independently tested for safety."In its history, the E.P.A. has mandated safety testing for only a small percentage of the 85,000 industrial chemicals available for use today. And once chemicals are in use, the burden on the E.P.A. is so high that it has succeeded in banning or restricting only five substances, and often only in specific applications: polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxin, hexavalent chromium, asbestos and chlorofluorocarbons."Part of the growing pressure to update federal rules on chemical safety comes from advances in the science of biomonitoring, which tells us more about the chemicals to which we are exposed daily, like the bisphenol A (BPA) in can linings and hard plastics, the flame retardants in couches, the stain-resistant coatings on textiles and the nonylphenols in detergents, shampoos and paints. Hazardous chemicals have become so ubiquitous that scientists now talk about babies being born pre-polluted, sometimes with hundreds of synthetic chemicals showing up in their blood."
Click here to read the entire article.