 |
Eleven was the number of personal hygiene products University of Washington, Tacoma student, Erin Eychener tallied up after thinking through her daily routine. Shampoo, conditioner, soap, shaving gel, toothpaste, mouthwash, body lotion, lip balm, deodorant, body butter, cuticle cream: a familiar list that takes on new meaning when you consider that each time you use one of these products you are also exposing your body to potential toxins. “Toxins and carcinogens enter the body in various ways including absorption through the skin, known as dermal, inhalation and ingestion. When substances are absorbed through the skin, they can then enter the blood stream,” said Dr. Janet Primomo, Associate Professor for Nursing at U of W, Tacoma. “Keep in mind that some people are much more susceptible, those who are young; the old, pregnant, and immunosuppressed, HIV/AIDS for example.” According to the Cancer Prevention Coalition (CPC), the personal products we lavish on our bodies are the least regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. The CPC also points out that a cosmetic manufacturer is not responsible for testing or analysis of their product before it enters the marketplace, meaning it can be on a store shelf with out a single government agency reviewing their ingredients. “I think people have lost interest in toxicity and environment - I’m not sure what it would take for the public to buy into that strongly,” said Dr. Jim Gawel, Associate Professor, U of W, Tacoma Environmental Chemistry at the Department of Environmental Sciences. “Originally, toxicity in the 70s was when all of these laws got passed - a lot of worst case scenarios and overblown reactions that turned out to be false – so naysayers can point to history where the gloom and doomsayers were wrong – I think there is a bit of jadedness when its difficult for science to show this,” Gawel said. The FDA oversees the cosmetic industry but the chemicals used in their formulas come from the chemical industry governed by the Environmental Protection Agency. There are major problems in managing those chemicals, namely, the high cost of tracking known toxins and carcinogens, and proving that health or safety risks would outweigh the financial damage to the company. The Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), passed in 1979, makes it the responsibility of the EPA to screen and regulate chemicals used in a manufacturer’s product as well as determine the risk to the company. “What we’re talking about is industry influence on policy regulation here,” said Dr. Vanessa Chio, Associate Professor at U of W, Tacoma Milgard School of Business. “The U.S. policy regulates that when they pass decisions they are required to weigh the cost on the industry. There is a heavy reliance on test data and if there are actually changes to be made then they should opt for the least “burdensome” conclusion. So they are encouraging companies to get away with the minimal acceptable standards of safety for the pharmaceutical industry,” Chio said. A different approach, launched last year by the European Union, is the Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals program, known as REACH. “TSCA does not put the onus on the industry – whereas REACH asks the industry to prove that the products they are creating and shipping are safe,” Gawel said. “TASCA has no standard to complete toxicity testing before production of a chemical – there are some attempts by TASCA but that is just sort of minimal data to submit to produce the chemical. REACH really is asking for a lot more material to do that.” According to a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released last year, while TSCA grandfathered in thousands of chemicals at its inception, REACH is starting with a clean slate. In addition to exempted chemicals, the U.S. also has to navigate Confidential Business Information (CBI) provisions, which create a huge loophole in TASCA that benefits manufacturers. Even if the EPA should challenge an ingredient list, which rarely happens, the manufacturer can claim they are jeopardizing their competitive advantage by making such information public. Meanwhile, REACH works with a three-prong approach: separating chemicals requiring authorization from those that would be exempt, standardizing a process to apply for usage of any chemicals that do require authorization, and enforcing research for replacement chemicals for any ingredients deemed unacceptably harmful to consumers. When asked why the U.S. hasn’t adopted this sort of system, Gawel pointed to presidential administrations. “There have been initiatives placed a couple different times but I don’t think anything will happen until there is influence in the office. Until there’s a transparency in allowing EPA to report toxicity I don’t think the EPA can do anything,” Gawel said. Regardless of past failures to facilitate change, the pressure is now on U.S. manufacturers to adhere to EU guidelines to maintain their position in the EU market - a huge consumer base of 27 countries. “It is now in a company’s interest to follow EU guidelines so they can sell it in other countries,” Chio said. “Those companies with the highest stakes will try to bat it down and get the E.U. to back off. They pulled in their own government to protect them, not just through the WTO, but on many fronts.” Chio and Gawel agree that the outcome will come down to interest groups and corporations. For example, pharmaceutical companies will have to contend with groups like the CDC and environmentalists. “If the other groups that are opposing this and want more stringent guidelines cant get into a coalition, then chances are whoever has the strongest voice and most political clout will be heard,” Chio said. Gawel believes there is another group that can sway this issue. “I think the public has a lot more power than people assume,” Gawel said. “But the public loses interest quickly and believes what is thrown at them in the media. The public can be a driving force when they get momentum - it’s a matter of when they can get to the point where they gain enough momentum to get legislation.” All of this political jockeying just to ensure the soap and shampoo you use doesn’t pose a health risk seems a bit far-fetched, but, unfortunately, it is not. Searching through the preliminary REACH list of chemicals requiring registration finds the chemical DEA, or diethanolamine. Though widely used in the U.S., DEA will most likely fall under the REACH list calling for a replacement chemical in current formulas. Though DEA on its own is non-toxic, when mixed with other chemicals, even the plastic of the bottle it comes in, it becomes the potent carcinogen called nitrosodiethanolamine. “The EU seems to give more credit to safeguarding the public – labeling so that the public can be a driving force to determine if a product can be used or not,” Gawel said. If the findings of a 2004 study by the EWG and Commonweal are any indication, labeling is exactly what U.S. consumers need. That study, examining chemicals found in the umbilical cord blood of U.S. newborns, indentified the presence of 287 chemicals, 180 of which are known to cause cancer in humans or animals. “The (U.S.) industry will fight labeling, thinking that the public will go off the deep end and be reactionary rather than expecting that people will use the information,” Gawel said. Unfortunately, in light of the 2004 newborn study, we may already be at the deep end. Meagan Murphy Ross March 31, 2008 |