ThePanelist.com - Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Products: What Would the EU Do?

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Products: What Would the EU Do?

Written by Michelle Haimoff

Monday, 15 October 2007

If universal health care were a reality in the United States, would the regulation of harmful products be tighter since the government would have to deal with the long-term health (read: economic) consequences?

I recently attended an author's talk at The Nation's offices on Irving Place for Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and What's At Stake for American Power written by Mark Schapiro. The book looks at the initiatives that have been taken in the European Union since the June 25, 2004 election that unified the countries' food and drug regulations.

When the EU surpassed the United States as the world's largest economy, its regulating committee decided to extensively study the role chemicals were playing in cosmetics, automobiles, toys and household items. The result was the discovery of carcinogenic ingredients, as well as chemicals that damage the nervous and reproductive systems, and a "Negative List" of chemicals that are no longer allowed in European cosmetics.

Not only does the US not have a similar list, but because we don't hold ourselves to EU standards (or even China standards, as China is aligning their production operations with those of Europe), the US has become a dumping ground for toxic products that have been banned in other countries.

Although Shapiro did not explicitly state that the solution is a universal health care system, one has to wonder if the American government would have greater incentive to take preventative measures now if they were assured to pay the long-term consequences later.

Tags

See All Tags

Event Coverage

Government

Michelle Haimoff

Comments (4)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by Less Toxic Guide , October 15, 2007

Don't wait for the Govt., here are some helpful links to make your own list:

http://www.lesstoxicguide.ca/index.asp?fetch=personal

http://www.lesstoxicguide.ca/index.asp?fetch=household

...
written by J Hudson , October 17, 2007

three thoughts:

As noted by Schapiro, the EU relies on US university research to compile their list of dangerous substances, because at the basic science level, the US does the most in world. But US research reaches no regulatory audience here. For an example of the US government/industry outlook, here's a link --
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2004/2004-06-24-03.asp

An optimistic interpretation for the marketplace: if the Europeans invent a better FDA and EPA, perhaps we can rely on them? At least when it comes to global brands, if we can be confident those brands become uniform in their ingredients worldwide.

Finally, after reading the lesstoxicguide.ca link (excellent link) -- and looking at some hi-end Kiehl's products -- paraben seems to be prominent among the listed substances. I never before paid attention to 'green-marketed' soap, but I will now. Forget Kiehl's, buy Aveda?

...
written by Mark Schapiro , October 18, 2007

Hi Michelle... I recall meeting at the Nation... Now, I see a bit more about your website.... It's quite interesting, taking on these social/political/ethical issues from an investor's standpoint....

I appreciate your handling of my book. In fact, I think that's at the heart of the book: a cool eyed assessment of how these alternative approaches have worked in an economy comparable to our own. Not only are they working, but they're providing serious competition to what are increasingly seen in the marketplace as old fashioned, even dangerous, US competitors that have never undergone a toxic screen. In many ways, this is why laws will ultimately be more important than the pressures of the market:
Laws will enable all manufacturers to start from the same point, then compete.....and have a baseline environmental health credibility from the outset...Today, the US market is a jumble of the well intentioned environmentally conscious and those who undercut them with products that would be banned in Europe and elsewhere....

...
written by Terry , April 16, 2008

Is it more PROFITABLE for Americans to HAVE CANCER or other related diseases than for us to be WELL? After speaking to an oncologist at a well-known CANCER RESEARCH HOSPITAL in Miami, I came to the conclusion that BIG BUSINESS DOES NOT WANT TO FOCUS ON PREVENTION. They do not want 'animal testing' not because they love animals as much as they don't want a LINK TO CANCER. PHARMACEUTICAL companies NEED TO MAKE & SELL DRUGS! MONEY for RESEARCH just pours in WALK FOR THE CURE sponsors are the same companies making Products with PARABENS/PHTHALATES/SLS/PEG/FORMALDEHYDE/LEAD/MERCURY...Who do you blame if PARABENS are found in YOUR breast tumors? Yourself, for not being a 'scientist or chemist' and knowing better than to use skin, hair,nail care products with toxic, synthetic carcinogenic ingredients? Most of us TRUST a reputable co...they must be reputable if they have NEVER had a complaint filed against them right? BIG MONEY and OUR obsession for beauty, convenience and low price fuel their MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR PROFIT MAKING MACHINE. WE THE PEOPLE, must DEMAND SAFER PRODUCTS and not wait for CONGRESS to enact laws that have already allowed loopholes for the EPA/FDA/USDA.
Arm yourselves with KNOWLEDGE. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.

Write comment

Tag it:

Michelle Haimoff
		About the author:
		Michelle Haimoff is a native New Yorker living and writing in Greenwich Village. She has written for Profile Magazine, L Magazine and Eyewitness Travel Guides.
	Read More >>