Much thanks to "Evil Mike" for sending this along...
========
www.theglobeandmail.com/servle...th/home
Want a full-time job? Live chemical-free
MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT
Globe and Mail Update
From Thursday's Globe and Mail — In Barbara Harris's home, you won't find air fresheners, non-stick pans or mattresses containing harsh flame retardants. That's by design: Ms. Harris tries to create a lifestyle that minimizes the chances she'll come into contact with harmful chemicals found in everyday products.
“I have a very simple, very scent-free, and very low-chemical household,” she declares.
Ms. Harris, who lives in Springhill, N.S., is part of a grassroots effort to minimize exposure to chemicals contained in dozens of consumer items, substances that a growing body of research suggests may pose health risks.
Along with others at the Environmental Health Association of Nova Scotia, she's used her experiences to help put together an Internet self-help guide (www.lesstoxicguide.ca) for those who want to cut potentially harmful substances out of their lives, and may be confused about how to go about it.
“It's more than a full-time job for individuals to try to figure out what's in the products that they're using,” Ms. Harris says of the difficulties.
Efforts to minimize exposures to chemicals in ordinary products are arising because many everyday household items contain substances such as a bisphenol A, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and perfluorochemicals, compounds that recent research has linked to a host of health problems, ranging from cancer to attention-deficit disorders and declining sperm counts.
The use of these chemicals wouldn't be a problem, except for another recent discovery. The chemicals used to make many consumer goods are migrating from products into the environment, and are now being detected in practically the entire population.
PBDEs, for instance, widely used in mattresses and computers as flame retardants, are found in the bodies of Canadians at the second highest level in the world, just after readings in the United States. Almost all Canadians also carry in their bloodstreams measurable quantities of perfluorochemicals, very persistent pollutants that are used to make non-stick pans and stain-repellant clothing.
The federal government is also looking at many chemicals in long-term use, and is expected to declare later this year that about 4,000 of them may present enough of a threat to either human health or to the environment that they should be given detailed safety reviews.
The chemicals are among 23,000 substances grandfathered in 1988 when the country adopted its modern anti-pollution rules. At the time, Canada decided to require in-depth safety evaluations only for new substances as they were introduced into the marketplace, and put off a decision on reviewing chemicals already used in commerce.
Worry about exposures to poorly regulated chemicals is why, in her home, Ms. Harris has looked at practically every consumer item, trying to select products with the lowest health risk. In her bed, is “a very expensive organic cotton mattress. There is really no choice in between for me,” she says, a step that has avoided PBDEs.
For household cleaners, she uses mild soaps, baking soda and vinegar. In the kitchen, forget about non-stick pans and the perfluorochemicals that are used to make them; she cooks on cast iron or stainless steel pots and pans, after finding that the fumes from non-stick cookware made her ill.
When she pops food into the microwave, it's never in a plastic container. She uses glass or pottery, a step taken to minimize the chances of chemicals from the hot container leaching into food.
She also advises consumers to relax a bit about the standards they set. For instance, she doesn't buy stain-resistant clothing, and was miffed recently when one of the large U.S.-based mail-order clothing companies began advertising T-shirts with chemical coatings that make them more impervious to dirt.
“You know, stains above brains,” she says.
“I think it's absurd that we put stain-resistant coatings on things where we don't need them.”
The federal chemical review effort could have wide-ranging implications for common products in homes and offices because of the thousands of potentially harmful substances under review, many which are used in consumer products.
One of the most commonly used substances that is expected to be reviewed is bisphenol A, a chemical that resembles a synthetic version of the female hormone estrogen. It's used to make polycarbonate, the hard plastic found in water bottles and compact discs, as well as the dental sealants commonly used on children's teeth.
Other common chemicals to be placed under additional scrutiny are some perfluorochemicals used to make stain-resistant and non-stick coatings for cookware, fast-food packaging, clothing and furniture, along with substances used to soften plastic in children's toys.
Even when the federal government announces its decision on the chemicals selected for review, it will likely be a lengthy process before assessments are done and harmful substances banned or restricted.
Ms. Harris says one of the common beliefs held by consumers is that if products are in stores, all the chemicals used to make them must automatically be safe because regulators have vetted them. The fact that thousands of chemicals need detailed reviews suggests to her that this view is mistaken.
“There is this misconception that Health Canada is protecting us from anything that could be toxic,” she says. “We think it's not true.”
Another approach some environmentalists are using to help people minimize chemical exposures is to monitor what companies say is in their products, then disseminate this information widely.
Clean Production Action, an environmental organization based in Montreal, has set up a website (www.safer-products.org) to do just that. It evaluates products that may contain potentially harmful chemicals, ranking them by corporate name.
“We often get calls from people saying, ‘Well, what am I supposed to buy and who can I trust to buy from?'” says Beverley Thorpe, a spokesperson for the organization.
By its rankings, some of the best companies are IKEA, the Swedish-based home-furnishings chain — which was one of the first to pull PBDEs from its products — and Dell, the big U.S.-based computer maker that also distanced itself from the chemicals.
PBDEs have been linked in laboratory animal experiments to behaviour changes similar to attention deficit and hyperactivity in human children.
For cars, it ranked Volvo the best because it has prohibited the use of several PBDEs in its vehicles, along with phthalates, chemicals used to soften plastic. There are also listings for furniture companies, cosmetics makers and retailers.
In the retail clothing sector, Ms. Thorpe considers H&M Hennes & Mauritz to be a cut above because the Swedish-based chain doesn't allow solvents or other hazardous chemicals to be used in the production of its garments, and all suppliers must sign a statement confirming that they don't use any of the substances that it prohibits.
Although many environmentalist are urging consumers to take matters into their own hands, some researchers say there is a limit to what an individual can do.
Dr. Ana Soto, a breast-cancer researcher at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston who is one of the world's leading authorities on bisphenol A, says many chemicals are almost impossible to avoid.
The only way to be sure of eliminating exposures is “don't eat, don't drink and don't breathe, and you cannot do that,” she says.
Although consumers can take steps to cut exposures, she doesn't know how successful these efforts will ultimately be because of the wide range of products involved.
“When you're being extremely careful, at the end of the day did you decrease the exposure by 5 per cent or 95 per cent? I cannot answer that,” Dr. Soto says. In her view, the most effective way to reduce exposures would be better regulation.
This is the last of five stories in the Toxic Shock series.
========
www.theglobeandmail.com/servle...th/home
Want a full-time job? Live chemical-free
MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT
Globe and Mail Update
From Thursday's Globe and Mail — In Barbara Harris's home, you won't find air fresheners, non-stick pans or mattresses containing harsh flame retardants. That's by design: Ms. Harris tries to create a lifestyle that minimizes the chances she'll come into contact with harmful chemicals found in everyday products.
“I have a very simple, very scent-free, and very low-chemical household,” she declares.
Ms. Harris, who lives in Springhill, N.S., is part of a grassroots effort to minimize exposure to chemicals contained in dozens of consumer items, substances that a growing body of research suggests may pose health risks.
Along with others at the Environmental Health Association of Nova Scotia, she's used her experiences to help put together an Internet self-help guide (www.lesstoxicguide.ca) for those who want to cut potentially harmful substances out of their lives, and may be confused about how to go about it.
“It's more than a full-time job for individuals to try to figure out what's in the products that they're using,” Ms. Harris says of the difficulties.
Efforts to minimize exposures to chemicals in ordinary products are arising because many everyday household items contain substances such as a bisphenol A, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and perfluorochemicals, compounds that recent research has linked to a host of health problems, ranging from cancer to attention-deficit disorders and declining sperm counts.
The use of these chemicals wouldn't be a problem, except for another recent discovery. The chemicals used to make many consumer goods are migrating from products into the environment, and are now being detected in practically the entire population.
PBDEs, for instance, widely used in mattresses and computers as flame retardants, are found in the bodies of Canadians at the second highest level in the world, just after readings in the United States. Almost all Canadians also carry in their bloodstreams measurable quantities of perfluorochemicals, very persistent pollutants that are used to make non-stick pans and stain-repellant clothing.
The federal government is also looking at many chemicals in long-term use, and is expected to declare later this year that about 4,000 of them may present enough of a threat to either human health or to the environment that they should be given detailed safety reviews.
The chemicals are among 23,000 substances grandfathered in 1988 when the country adopted its modern anti-pollution rules. At the time, Canada decided to require in-depth safety evaluations only for new substances as they were introduced into the marketplace, and put off a decision on reviewing chemicals already used in commerce.
Worry about exposures to poorly regulated chemicals is why, in her home, Ms. Harris has looked at practically every consumer item, trying to select products with the lowest health risk. In her bed, is “a very expensive organic cotton mattress. There is really no choice in between for me,” she says, a step that has avoided PBDEs.
For household cleaners, she uses mild soaps, baking soda and vinegar. In the kitchen, forget about non-stick pans and the perfluorochemicals that are used to make them; she cooks on cast iron or stainless steel pots and pans, after finding that the fumes from non-stick cookware made her ill.
When she pops food into the microwave, it's never in a plastic container. She uses glass or pottery, a step taken to minimize the chances of chemicals from the hot container leaching into food.
She also advises consumers to relax a bit about the standards they set. For instance, she doesn't buy stain-resistant clothing, and was miffed recently when one of the large U.S.-based mail-order clothing companies began advertising T-shirts with chemical coatings that make them more impervious to dirt.
“You know, stains above brains,” she says.
“I think it's absurd that we put stain-resistant coatings on things where we don't need them.”
The federal chemical review effort could have wide-ranging implications for common products in homes and offices because of the thousands of potentially harmful substances under review, many which are used in consumer products.
One of the most commonly used substances that is expected to be reviewed is bisphenol A, a chemical that resembles a synthetic version of the female hormone estrogen. It's used to make polycarbonate, the hard plastic found in water bottles and compact discs, as well as the dental sealants commonly used on children's teeth.
Other common chemicals to be placed under additional scrutiny are some perfluorochemicals used to make stain-resistant and non-stick coatings for cookware, fast-food packaging, clothing and furniture, along with substances used to soften plastic in children's toys.
Even when the federal government announces its decision on the chemicals selected for review, it will likely be a lengthy process before assessments are done and harmful substances banned or restricted.
Ms. Harris says one of the common beliefs held by consumers is that if products are in stores, all the chemicals used to make them must automatically be safe because regulators have vetted them. The fact that thousands of chemicals need detailed reviews suggests to her that this view is mistaken.
“There is this misconception that Health Canada is protecting us from anything that could be toxic,” she says. “We think it's not true.”
Another approach some environmentalists are using to help people minimize chemical exposures is to monitor what companies say is in their products, then disseminate this information widely.
Clean Production Action, an environmental organization based in Montreal, has set up a website (www.safer-products.org) to do just that. It evaluates products that may contain potentially harmful chemicals, ranking them by corporate name.
“We often get calls from people saying, ‘Well, what am I supposed to buy and who can I trust to buy from?'” says Beverley Thorpe, a spokesperson for the organization.
By its rankings, some of the best companies are IKEA, the Swedish-based home-furnishings chain — which was one of the first to pull PBDEs from its products — and Dell, the big U.S.-based computer maker that also distanced itself from the chemicals.
PBDEs have been linked in laboratory animal experiments to behaviour changes similar to attention deficit and hyperactivity in human children.
For cars, it ranked Volvo the best because it has prohibited the use of several PBDEs in its vehicles, along with phthalates, chemicals used to soften plastic. There are also listings for furniture companies, cosmetics makers and retailers.
In the retail clothing sector, Ms. Thorpe considers H&M Hennes & Mauritz to be a cut above because the Swedish-based chain doesn't allow solvents or other hazardous chemicals to be used in the production of its garments, and all suppliers must sign a statement confirming that they don't use any of the substances that it prohibits.
Although many environmentalist are urging consumers to take matters into their own hands, some researchers say there is a limit to what an individual can do.
Dr. Ana Soto, a breast-cancer researcher at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston who is one of the world's leading authorities on bisphenol A, says many chemicals are almost impossible to avoid.
The only way to be sure of eliminating exposures is “don't eat, don't drink and don't breathe, and you cannot do that,” she says.
Although consumers can take steps to cut exposures, she doesn't know how successful these efforts will ultimately be because of the wide range of products involved.
“When you're being extremely careful, at the end of the day did you decrease the exposure by 5 per cent or 95 per cent? I cannot answer that,” Dr. Soto says. In her view, the most effective way to reduce exposures would be better regulation.
This is the last of five stories in the Toxic Shock series.
posted by:
|
