Like you, I receive many emails concerning environmental toxins. Many of their claims are based on conjecture rather than scientific evidence and are delivered in a panicked manner, implying that you or a family member is doomed if you do not act quickly. It is especially annoying that they often target minor issues rather than major ones. For example, they have emphasized the danger of artificial sweeteners. However, if one has a choice, and when used in moderation, these sweeteners are healthier than sugar. Too often, these organizations accomplish nothing more than disturbing people needlessly.
A few months ago, a clamor was raised about black kitchen utensils, their transfer of “forever chemicals” to food, and that everyone should immediately purchase new, non-black ones. Shortly after, a report noted a mathematical error in the study that had magnified the risk tenfold; when that error was corrected, the transfer was shown to be negligible. Did any of the sources that urgently reported the danger issue a correction or apology? No, they just left people with the impression that these utensils were harmful.
Potential toxins are ubiquitous and inescapable in present-day life, and avoiding exposure is impossible. The connection between many of these toxins and health conditions is considered “possible” or “potential,” but not “causal.” These organizations too frequently disregard researchers’ cautions that results are tentative and require additional research and generate fear over what may be an unfounded concern. This is not to minimize the possible effects of these chemicals or compounds individually or in concert, but some pollutants present more significant and immediate concerns than black utensils. More significant issues include the presence of lead and other heavy metals in baby food, the location of toxic waste dumps or refineries near poor communities, and their placement where they can contaminate water sources.
Multiple studies over the past decade have documented the presence of lead in various brands of baby food, with research consistently linking even low-level exposure to negative impacts on child development, including cognitive impairment, behavioral problems, and delayed growth. Lead and other heavy metals naturally occur in soil used for growing fruits and vegetables. They could be removed during food production, but this would be expensive and would increase the product price. There has been little interest by the Department of Agriculture or major universities in researching alternative growing or processing methods that would make the product safer while maintaining a reasonable cost.
Then, there is concern over microplastics. A broad range of ills has been credited to them, but no direct link has been established. Not long ago, a brain was pictured with shards of plastic embedded in it, without explanation of how such large pieces entered the body and migrated to the brain without tearing a blood vessel and causing fatal bleeding, or that the shards were illustrative only and not representative of microplastics. Recommendations have been made on how individuals can reduce their plastic intake, such as avoiding the use of plastic food storage containers or plastic wrap. They are laughable given the universality of microplastics in our water and air. There is a definitive link to environmental harm. Still, governments have made little effort to insist on alternative packaging or to remediate the megatons of plastic waste.
A similar condition occurs with particulates and chemicals that are vented from smokestacks into the atmosphere by many industries by the gigaton. A study examining the economic impact of diseases from these pollutants compared to the benefits derived from the industries would be valuable. It is unlikely to be forthcoming from the present administration, which is currently seeking to relax air pollution regulations.
Toxic waste is treated too callously and placed in locations that can threaten people’s health by polluting soil or water. Even those materials that have been established as causative of diseases are treated too cavalierly. Proper disposal would be costly, however, and regulations are lacking to require safe disposal.
All of these avoidance tactics represent corporate political influence, profit, and power. As with the health care industry, companies that produce these products manipulate decision-makers whose vision is limited to increasing municipal or state income and personal revenue. They have little interest in the eventual costs arising from medical conditions, long-term disability, decreased productivity, and infrastructure requirements. This influence also vitiates the power of the people on all governmental levels. In turn, this leads to voter discouragement and apathy, which are the apotheosis of democratic functioning, and reward and encourage politicians for their misbehavior. It has been many years since legislators have represented the interests of the people, and they presently pass legislation in direct opposition to what the majority of citizens desire and vote for, with impunity. They should frequently and forcefully be reminded that the public could remove them from office if they act in a contrary manner. Unfortunately, this rarely occurs given voter indifference.
Organizations that have advocated for the public good for years, such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest or Public Citizen, have achieved successes that benefit people regardless of their political affiliation. They can always benefit from additional members to amplify their impact, and joining one of these organizations, in addition to voting, can create necessary change.
M. Bennet Broner is a medical ethicist.
