Skip to main content

A Pandora’s Box of things I can never unknow


The real difficulty with learning about the amount of waste Americans generate is the flood of other information that comes with that research. According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), women are exposed to 168 chemicals in the cosmetics they use while men are exposed to roughly half, 85.
            I come from an area of the country where people are adamantly against big government and even more against governmental regulations. On the other hand, they will tell you how great it is to live in a country where the food and water are so safe and clean. Never once will they put two and two together realizing that regulatory agencies ensure their food is safe to eat. Why am I telling you this? Because I am a fan of regulating food and other products to protect us from companies trying to make a buck.
            I should not have to learn chemistry to shop for soap. However, in the US it is nearly to that point. The FDA bans only 11 chemicals from cosmetics (Cosmetics is a broad category ranging from make up to tooth paste) while the EU has banned or severely limited the use of more than a thousand and Canada bans hundreds of the same chemicals the FDA considers safe. In the US the government takes the view that something is safe until determined dangerous while in Europe and Canada chemicals must be proven safe before allowed on the market.
            Below are just a few of the reasons I would argue for greater regulation of food and cosmetics in the US:
1.     There is little to no regulation for chemical mixtures labeled as “fragrance” in the US. The FDA allows companies to claim “fragrance” blends as proprietary information. This allows companies to keep those chemical mixtures off ingredients labels.
2.     Ripe oranges are not actually orange. The FDA allows companies to spray or inject the orange skins with dye to make them more appealing to the consumer. The FDA reasons that this is acceptable because no one consumes the rind of an orange.
3.     Talcum-based body powders that were marketed for use on infants and female genitalia have been shown to meet market regulation while containing asbestos fibers.
4.     Microplastics have been found in water bottles in startling numbers. More recently microplastics have been found in the air we breathe. There is no information at this point what the health impacts of consuming small plastic particles on a regular basis will do to humans.
5.     Natural flavoring simply means that the flavor originated from a natural organism. The end product can have dozens of added ingredients to aid in maintaining or enhancing the flavor.
The lack of regulation in cosmetics and food makes it seem like this is one giant science experiment and we are test subjects. Groups like EWG work to determine the long term health effects of the chemicals we encounter every day. My hope is that some day the government will catch up to groups like this and take a hard look at what they are allowing companies to sell us all in the name of capitalism. 


Popular posts from this blog

We can never escape

The presence of plastics in our every aspect of our lives is becoming a greater concern for many people. We know that fish are eating plastics , then we eat the fish , there are microplastics in bottled water  and recently it has become apparent that plastic particles are in the air we breathe.  Plastics are in every aspect of our lives, but what we do not know is the impact they will have on our health.             Many of the chemicals that make up plastics are dangerous to human health. They can be endocrine disrupters or even cancerous. When plastic is warmed, the chemicals in its makeup begin to leach into their surroundings, whether that is water or fatty tissue of an animal.             A recent study found that microplastics were present in the deepest crevices of the ocean . Where did those micro plastics come from? The study determi...

Conscious consumer

In GEG we had several discussions about the ways to protect the international environment. Most common comments were about strong regulation, better technology or having the global north subsidize the global south. Now I did not disagree with all of those points, but I do disagree with one quite ferociously.               I find the desire for “better” technology to be a way to get around the actual problems we face. I believe people use this as an excuse to exempt themselves from having to make any serious changes to their own life style. For example, I have heard we need more efficient energy use or for better battery technology to store electricity. How about using less? That is not something people in GEG seemed open to doing.             On the other hand, I am obviously an advocate for changing consumer habits; buying less stuff, eating vegetaria...