Don’t assume household chemicals are safe

By Ashley Zook
(Created: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 1:29 PM EST)

Most citizens don’t know that more than 85 percent of the chemicals used here in the U.S. are not tested for safety before they are put into consumer products and distributed to stores.

Some of these are chemicals that cause a wide range of health risks from learning disabilities, Alzheimer’s disease and brain damage to problems with the immune system, thyroid glands and kidneys.

Some untested chemicals — such as mercury, non-stick agents, lead, dioxin and bisphenol-A — cause cancer even in small percentages.

Just because we are familiar with a chemical’s name doesn’t mean that we know the effects it may have on our health. As a consumer one would think that the products being sold in stores are safe and that there must be some type of processing requiring companies to test chemicals before using them in consumer goods. There’s not, and there most certainly should be.

Mercury is found in thermometers, thermostats, fluorescent light bulbs and even fish. Advisories for fish consumption because of mercury content are increasing at a faster rate than those for any other pollutant today. Lead is another chemical well known for its dangers yet still in many consumer products. Young children continue to be exposed to lead through candle wicks, pottery and crayons, and scientific studies show that lead even leaches out of some plastic toys.

This is America; we should have the right to know whether the products we use on a daily basis cause disabilities, disease and death. To sell these items to unsuspecting consumers everyday is not fair. Something must be done to broaden our right to know that the things we’re buying are safe and won’t harm our health.

Unity College first-year student Ashley Zook

Low levels of dioxin, a chemical that is used in the production of plastics, can cause extreme damage. Dioxin cannot be recycled without contaminating the recycling process. It cannot be buried because it would leach into the surrounding groundwater and soil. Bisphenol-A (BPA) probably sounds familiar, but do you know what it does? Animal studies suggest that low doses of BPA can cause hyperactivity in children as well as learning and developmental disorders. It’s also a chemical that doesn’t break down easily.

In February of this year, Governor Baldacci signed an executive order that commits Maine’s government to phase out our use of many toxic chemicals that are still in use today. The Governor also announced that creation of a task force to be put in place that would identify safer alternatives to hazardous chemicals. He stated that he is “proud that Maine is continuing to be a leader in making our nation healthier.”

The Governor’s move is a step in the right direction, but a more plausible solution to the toxic chemical dilemma, which would improve public health and reduce pollution in our bodies dramatically, is a comprehensive chemicals policy. Such a policy would require chemical companies to test the chemicals that are being distributed in the U.S. and to test newer chemicals before putting them on the market. A comprehensive chemical policy would also require manufacturers to use safe, affordable alternatives to these toxic chemicals if they are available.

If a safer alternative is not available, this policy would require the chemical and manufacturing companies to take responsibility and label their product if it could have adverse health effects.

Cigarette companies are required to have a label on their products to alert users to the risk of cancer. Products that cause reproductive problems and brain and developmental disorders need some kind of label too. Only then will we as consumers have the opportunity to rely on the safety of what we buy.