|
Greens'
War Against All Chemicals Will Do Little To Reduce Our Risks Source of Article: http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1502&status=article&id=317864452504379 By Henry Miller Posted 1/26/2009 A report from a panel appointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
says that The report, part of a plan by the California Environmental Protection
Agency to eliminate many supposedly toxic materials, is more appropriate for
a wish list sent to Santa Claus than an attempt at serious public policy. It recalls H.L. Mencken's observation that for every complex problem there
is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong. For starters, the governor and members of his panel seem oblivious to the
fact that we live in a sea of chemicals — and that, in fact, our bodies are
actually comprised of them — and also to the toxicologists' credo, "the
dose makes the poison." Many of the alarms raised recently about chemicals, from those in rubber duckies and plastic bottles to pesticides used in
agriculture, are completely bogus, while most of the others represent only
negligible risks. Pseudo-scares and the wrongheaded (and often very costly) responses to
them — as in these latest recommendations from the governor's panel — are
wasteful, if not actually harmful. For example, the federal EPA forced General Electric to remove trace
levels of chemicals called PCBs from the An example of misperception of risk is acrylamide,
a useful industrial compound formed naturally in high-carbohydrate-containing
foods cooked at high temperatures, such as in frying or broiling. It has
thus been part of the human diet since humans learned that cooked foods taste
better than raw ones. Yet because we only learned of acrylamide's
existence in foods recently, and because very large amounts fed to animals
cause cancer, there have been calls to require warning labels on fried foods
and other products — in spite of the fact that acrylamide
in food has never been shown to harm human health. Yet another example of a poorly substantiated health threat is the current
scare about bisphenol A (BPA) — a chemical used to
make certain plastics clear and shatterproof. Again, because animals fed huge doses of the chemical experienced ill
effects, and because minuscule amounts can leach into the contents of plastic
cups and bottles when they are heated, warnings about an effect on infants
and children (guaranteed to have the most potent effect on parents) have been
trumpeted in the media. ("Is your baby exposed to carcinogens with
every feeding? Story at 11.") Exaggerated Risks Controversy over chemicals rages on the other side of the pond as
well. In 2003, the European Union's Institute for Health and Consumer
Protection concluded in a risk assessment of DINP, a chemical commonly used
in a variety of consumer products: "The end products containing DINP (clothes, building materials, toys
and baby equipment) and the sources of exposure (car and public transport
interiors, food and food packaging) are unlikely to pose a risk for consumers
(adults, infants and newborns)." In spite of the reassuring risk assessments, politicians overruled them,
and the EU instituted a permanent ban on DINP and related chemicals in
children's toys in 2005. But these risks aren't real — or to be more accurate, they haven't been
substantiated. If we followed through by banning all the chemicals we
read about that supposedly cause (pick one) cancer, birth defects, low sperm
counts, autism, Alzheimer's disease, etc., we'd have to ban most of the
chemicals in the world — including "natural" ones. Unfortunately, the scares are real attention-grabbers; they sell papers
and attract our attention on TV spots and Internet blogs. And many
journalists and editors — to say nothing of politicians — seem not to care
whether the science supports the hype. How can we know what we should worry about? There is a remarkable new interactive Web source that helps consumers
answer that question — to understand what poses significant health risks, and
what does not. The New York-based American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) has
produced and manages what it calls a "Riskometer"
(www.Riskometer.org), which allows visitors to compare health risks. It informs us that exposure to cigarette smoking is far and away the
leading cause of cancer deaths: In 2002 the odds of dying from smoking were 1
in 771. ("Odds of dying" is defined as the number of people
expected to produce one death from a particular cause.) The odds of
dying from obesity or from unintentional injuries (including traffic
accidents, falls and others) are each about 1 in 2,800. Far less likely is death from exposure to the dry cleaning fluid perchloroethylene (PERC) or from arsenic in water (about
1 in 6,000,000). In spite of this infinitesimal risk, laws were passed
restricting the use of PERC — because "everyone knows" it's a
serious health risk. The data on the ACSH Riskometer show that many
of the hyped "threats" that we hear and read about daily occur very
far down on the list. The media's "pseudo-scare mode" is a disservice to its readers
and viewers because people have only so much time to pay attention to health
issues, and if most stories focus attention on minor (or virtually
nonexistent) threats, greater risks that individuals
may be able to control get short shrift. The bottom line: Be skeptical, be informed, consult
the Riskometer. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is a fellow at |
Copyright (C) All rights reserved under FoodHACCP.com
If you have any comments, please send your
email to
