toxic chemicals and why we need to "design with complete intention"

I went to hear Claudia Polsky speak about the use and effects of toxic chemicals in consumer products. On top of being a talented and engaging presenter, she was a very good educator and presented some convincing and seemingly balanced information.

What are the effects of using all these toxic chemicals? The cause-effect relationship is often not 100% direct, but the take home point is that toxics that we produce and use are having a lot of long term effects on us and all other living things in our ecosphere. The overarching problem is that we do not and often cannot anticipate all of the effects that these chemicals will have.

One oft-cited example of the effects of toxic bioaccumulation are beached, dead whales that need to be disposed of according to biohazard procedures. A new example that Claudia gave was that one in 50 female polar bears are now hermaphrodites as a result of hormonal disruption.

Just trace amounts of copper, released through the use of car brake pads, cause salmon to lose their sense of smell and therefore their ability to detect predators.

Bioaccumulation of flame retardants in peregrine falcon eggs is causing neurological/ behavioural changes so severe that the birds no longer know how to care for their young properly.

In humans, some of the indicators of toxic contamination are measured through (the skyrocketing) rates of cancer and autism. Good quote from Claudia: “Why do we ‘race for the cure’ but crawl toward prevention?”

Why is it happening? Short answer: because we don’t know any better and we do not follow the precautionary principle. Many chemicals are used in products and/or added to food before we know that they are or will be problematic. There are also a lot of economic reasons. Also, the more geographically dispersed a supply chain is, the less regulatory control there is over chemicals added to the product or used in the production process.

What can be done? The US has a very poor federal statute that grandfathers 62,000 chemicals and gives the EPA virtually no ability to regulate chemicals. As a result, some of the progressive states (i.e. Cali) have been passing individual chemical bans. There are many limitations to this approach: labourious, too many chemicals and too few banning bills, often leads to regrettable substitutes that cause more problems.

Currently Cali has two bills that establish broad authority for the state to regulate chemicals and establish information sharing and research initiatives to advance both industry and consumer knowledge.

Other pressures for reform come through data on bioaccumulation effects, the increased number of consumer recalls, and the advances of other jurisdictions (e.g. EU adopted “REACH” program where if there is not enough data on the chemical then it will not be permitted on the market).

‘The Market’ plays a pivotal role in what and how chemicals are used. Until there is more complete information about toxic chemical effects in the market, it will continue to send false cost signals and perpetrate poor health and long term cost choices.

Another big next step is to mandate ingredient disclosure on all consumer products. The more we know, the better choices we can make for our own health… theoretically. A good example of this is in NY where they passed a law requiring nutrition information be disclosed at restaurants. Once people knew a frappuccino had 600 calories and 23g fat (why was this a big surprise?!) and stopped buying it, Starbucks responded by developing the 250 calorie, 2g fat Vivano. Changes? People are a little healthier, no change in revenues, no jobs lost. The market can adjust and will respond to better information on toxic chemicals used in our products and food.

Big lesson: we need to know more, employ our knowledge, err on the side of precaution and “design with complete intention.”