Up To Date Presents Food For Thought Entry 4: Chemical Elements

America is well known as the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. It is also known as a land with many maladies for such a developed nation and is home to stores whose products contain many chemicals. Many of those are potentially toxic yet are protected from testing under the law. From lead to BPA and from mercury to atrazine, the market is saturated with potentially toxic substances. This is a normalization of toxicity in our products, and it is unacceptable.

To start, the number of chemicals on the American market is over 84,000 (Loki 2020). To make matters worse, many of these synthetic substances are untested, and automatically presumed to be safe. In fact, AlterNet’s Reynard Loki puts the number of tested substances around only 1% of all chemicals on the market as of 2020. The reason for this is that the laws protecting American consumers from toxic chemicals are simply toothless. They vary by state, and the federal government’s laws haven’t been updated significantly for several decades (Loki 2020). According to Loki’s article, thousands of new chemicals enter the market every year, and almost all of them are not required to be tested for safety, even in 2020. As a result, some incredibly damaging chemicals have snuck their way into stores, affecting millions of Americans every day.

One of these chemicals is formaldehyde. Used as a preservative with an extremely wide set of applications, it is also a known carcinogen. In other words, it can cause cancer. Other effects include miscarriages and low birth weight (Loki 2020). It’s a product that is everywhere from cosmetics to corpses, and from pressed wood to permanent fabrics (Loki 2020), and it’s incredibly toxic. In fact cosmetics are recommended to have no more than .2% formaldehyde by a non-governmental agency called the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (Loki 2020). People already know that formaldehyde is a problem, and given its damaging effects, it’s a significant one. However, that’s far from the only toxin in our products.

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical that is frequently used in various plastics, often in food and drink containers (Petre 2018). However, the main problem with BPA and many similar chemicals is that they mimic estrogen, binding to receptors of that hormone in the body and hindering bodily functions (Petre 2018). To make matters worse, one of the functions inhibited is reproduction, with effects ranging from low sperm counts in men to more frequent miscarriages in women (Petre 2018). This decreases the likelihood of having children markedly, which is not good considering that our bodily clocks are always ticking. Unfortunately, that timer may tick even faster than normal if too much BPA is present in the body. This is because BPA raises the risk of Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and obesity. This is in addition to various other disorders, as well (Petre 2018). Therefore, it is safe to say that BPA is toxic, and it should be facing tougher restrictions than the US currently has on it. 

However, the alternatives to BPA aren’t necessarily much of an improvement, particularly in the cases of BPF and BPS. These two chemicals are remarkably similar to BPA, and in more than just name. According to Time Magazine, these chemicals all share a similar structure, thus inducing the same hormone-ruining effect (Worland 2015). This renders the recent push to make products BPA-free as doomed to be incomplete in its scope, albeit effective so far. The real end goal should be to make these products BP-free as a whole, and only then will our estrogen not be mimicked by these insidious industrial substances.

 And then there are the phthalates. Aside from their name being nigh-impossible to spell and pronounce, they are also nearly impossible to avoid if a person is exposed to cosmetics and shower products. These include nail polish, shampoos, and soap. Like BP chemicals, phthalates are endocrine disrupting substances, again inhibiting sexual development in males (Martin 2010). The good news is that six of these chemicals were banned in children’s toys quite some time ago (Martin 2010), but the bad news is that they are still ubiquitous elsewhere. The even worse news is that due to said ubiquity, it is almost impossible to avoid these chemicals entirely, even in the womb. In fact, that fact may explain the recent rise in ADHD rates in children (Martin 2010). This chemical class is toxic in so many ways, but at least something is being done about it.

However, possibly the worst offender in terms of chemical toxins is atrazine. Produced by a Swiss chemical company called Syngenta, it is the second most commonly used herbicide in the United States (Munoz 2019). Unfortunately, this chemical is extremely toxic, and is also the largest contaminant of American drinking water (Munoz 2019). In fact, it’s dangerous enough that the European Union has banned its use entirely since 2003 due to its ability as an endocrine disruptor (Munoz 2019) in addition to the certainty of water contamination. There is a legal limit as to how much atrazine is allowed in American drinking water, and that limit is three parts per billion. Unfortunately, in certain areas of America, that number gets exceeded rather easily, sometimes reaching over fifty parts per billion (Munoz 2019).

That alone should be enough to ban this chemical, but things get even worse when other animals’ problems with atrazine are examined, particularly with frogs. In a series of studies done by Dr. Tyrone Hayes at UC Berkeley, various frog species have faced deleterious effects from atrazine exposure. These effects include all sorts of reproductive maladies, including the development of feminine sexual characteristics in genetically male frogs (Sanders 2011). These frogs can mate with other males and even produce offspring with them. In fact, some of these frogs even develop both male and female reproductive organs, and this happens in atrazine levels thirty times lower than the legal limit in drinking water (Sanders 2011). This could be why amphibian populations are declining as rapidly as they are, and could also be a key culprit in the rising rates of miscarriages and several birth defects and disabilities in babies who do get born. Atrazine is so toxic, it could be argued that it is a public health crisis in and of itself, and that’s not even considering every other chemical on the market. This is a chemical that our society can do without, and its ban would probably greatly improve our society to the point where agribusiness wouldn’t even miss it.

Unfortunately, in most cases, nothing is done by the US government to stop toxic chemicals. According to the documentary The Human Experiment, which extensively covers the ubiquitous use of toxic chemicals in everyday products, America’s laws regarding the matter are pitifully weak. The law that is cited is the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, which requires testing on all chemicals introduced into the marketplace after that date (Bhave 2015). However, that’s the problem. By that time, there were already over 60,000 synthetic chemicals already on the market, and they were just grandfathered in, assumed to be safe (Bhave 2015). Presumably, the justification had something to do with the lack of studies condemning the existing chemicals at the time. In fact, these chemicals are practically entrenched in our society because removing them from the market takes ludicrous amounts of evidence. That means 60,000 potential toxins are here to stay in regards to American everyday usage.

Unfortunately, this flimsy testing system leaves the FDA and EPA in an awkward position. For one thing, an exorbitant amount of evidence is required to ban a chemical and have the ban survive through the courts (Bhave 2015). This leaves the agencies on the back foot, merely reacting to prevent more sales involving the chemical rather than preventing it altogether. This reactionary approach can potentially harm millions of lives, depending on the chemical and how much it’s used.

Meanwhile, in Europe, their program for dealing with toxic chemicals is called REACH, and it is far more effective. There, the burden of proof is on the manufacturers to make safe chemicals (Bhave 2015). This, combined with the absence of a grandfather clause, ensures that European markets don’t have to worry as much about toxic chemicals. I suspect that the reason Europe’s laws are that much tougher is similar to the reasoning behind the discrepancy in laws regarding GMOs; There is nowhere near the amount of corporate influence in Europe that is in the US. In short, Europe’s chemical laws are more preventative than America’s, which are far more reactionary in nature. If America adopts a similar system of Europe, maybe then our products will become at least a little less lethal. 

However, chemicals are not the only carcinogens in our environment. In fact, something as innocuous as a hot dog may also pose a problem. This is because processed meat, including hot dogs, bacon, and salami, is considered a Group 1 carcinogen by the IARC (Patrick 2021). This is on the same level as smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol. Other red meats are rated at a 2A, which means they probably cause cancer. However, this does not rate the severity of the correlation between a product and cancer, but rather the mere existence of one (Patrick 2021). In fact, the correlation between processed meat and cancer is not as strong as that of tobacco, with one study finding a 10:1 difference in the amount of UK cancer cases relating to each. Smoking caused over 54,000 cases, including nearly three out of every four lung cancer cases. Meanwhile, meat caused 5,400 cases, including one out of every eight colorectal cancer cases (Patrick 2021). Of course, these meats shouldn’t necessarily be cut back on entirely, considering their high iron levels that are difficult to replace (Patrick 2021). However, any elevated risk in cancer is extremely worrying, regardless of its perceived severity. Perhaps if chemical usage and red meat consumption both decline, cancer rates will as well.

On a personal note, I can understand why certain chemicals may be necessary. However, the system as it stands is inefficient, uncontrolled, and unsustainable. Thankfully, alternatives exist, such as green chemistry. The Environmental Protection Agency defines this as “the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use or generation of hazardous substances” (EPA 2017). The idea of green chemistry focuses on safety, both environmental and societally. This is in addition to sustainability, both environmental and economic. The main hurdle I see with this is getting the industrial complex to go along. This is because of possible extra expenses, considering that more bases must be covered in order to produce a green product. These bases not only include economic viability, but also safety and sustainability, both of which could possibly reduce viability. If the big companies go along with this, it is more than a suitable alternative, and may be the future of the chemical industry. If they don’t, we just have to keep up the pressure and get their heads out of the sand.

Humans should know better than to embrace such a degraded quality of life. For example, a wolf pack on the hunt has to find a tight balance between the quality of  the meat and the ease of the kill. The fewer wolves there are, the more they err towards an easy kill. If we were wolves, we’d be settling for a subsistence-level diet. If we all band together and demand change, we will be able to be the change. If we were wolves, we would be able to hunt the best prey. The solution to this chemical calamity is to demand better from those with power, Industry organizations and political entities alike need to know that this needs to be dealt with. Only then, will humanity be healthier. Only then, will we become greater than ourselves.

Works Cited

Bhave, Ashwini, Sean Penn, and Chelsea Matter. 2015. The Human Experiment. Directed by Dana Nachman, Don Hardy, Jessica Assaf, Arlene Blum, Scott Hardkiss, KTF Films (Firm), and Kino Lorber, Inc. Kino Lorber.

EPA, US. “Basics of Green Chemistry.” EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, March 21, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/greenchemistry/basics-green-chemistry. 

Loki, Reynard. “What Are We Doing to Ourselves? 84,000 Chemicals, and Only 1% Have Been Tested.” Alternet.org, November 25, 2020. https://www.alternet.org/2015/07/84000-chemicals-use-humanity-only-1-percent-have-been-safely-tested/. 

Martin, David S. “5 Toxics That Are Everywhere: Protect Yourself.” CNN. Cable News Network, May 31, 2010. https://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/31/chemical.dangers/index.html. 

Munoz, Kissairis. “Atrazine: the Most Common Toxic Contaminant in Our Water.” Dr. Axe, September 5, 2019. https://draxe.com/health/atrazine/. 

Patrick, Katie. “How Does Processed Meat Cause Cancer and How Much Matters?” Cancer Research UK – Science blog, April 12, 2021. https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2021/03/17/bacon-salami-and-sausages-how-does-processed-meat-cause-cancer-and-how-much-matters/. 

Petre, Alina. “What Is BPA and Why Is It Bad for You?” Healthline, December 17, 2018. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/what-is-bpa#what-it-is. 

Sanders, Robert. “Pesticide Atrazine Can Turn Male Frogs into Females.” Berkeley News, January 5, 2011. https://news.berkeley.edu/2010/03/01/frogs/#:~:text=Though%20the%20experiments%20were%20performed%20on%20a%20common,of%20amphibian%20declines%20around%20the%20globe%2C%20Hayes%20said. 

Worland, Justin. “BPA-Free: BPF, BPS in Plastic Bottles, Packaging Could Be Dangerous.” Time. Time, April 15, 2015. https://time.com/3742871/bpa-free-health/.