Q. You point out in your book that more than 80,000 chemical substances are registered for commercial use in the United States—and about 10,000 of these appear in things we use every day—but the EPA has no data on the potential human health effects of the vast majority of these chemicals.
A. Well, the way our system works in the United States, a chemical is considered safe until it’s proven harmful, so it’s out there for years and years until a body of evidence demonstrates the harm it has already caused. There are a number of public health advocates and environmentalists and even politicians who believe that this is a backwards system, that industry should first have to demonstrate a product is safe before it can be put into commerce. But under current law, the EPA is not authorized to gather the basic toxicity data; it must rely on chemical companies to provide this kind of data. As recently as last year, the U.S. General Accountability Office recommended that Congress amend the law—known as the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976—to give the EPA more power to collect this type of basic information.
Q. So, what should Congress do?
A. It has to revisit the Toxic Substances Control Act, which hasn’t been amended since it was passed more than 30 years ago, despite the mountains of new scientific information we have about industrial chemicals and their hazardous effects. And I think Congress has to empower the EPA to gather the basic information it needs to do what most Americans think it already does, which is to weed out the most hazardous of these substances.
Q. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began tracking pesticides and chemical pollutants in U.S. citizens in 2001. What is their research showing?
A. There’s been some progress in reducing people’s exposure levels to chemicals that we’ve been concerned about for a really long time—such as lead and dioxins and PCBs. The not-so-good news is that the majority of the chemicals that are now being measured—we really don’t know for sure what kind of health effects they may have.
Q. Even if we did know the health effects, would it make a difference?
A. Yes, because individuals can use the information to decide if they want to take steps in their own life to try to limit exposures. And if they’re concerned about this—for themselves and their children and their grandchildren—they may want to call for changes that we can make as a society through legislative action and laws.
Q. What steps can individuals take to reduce chemical exposures?
A. Here’s what I’ve started doing in my own life. I buy and eat organic foods whenever possible, because they’re pesticide-free. I don’t eat microwave popcorn anymore, which is something I used to enjoy, because I learned that the chemicals that coat the inside of the packaging—they’re called fluorotelomers—have a very long half-life in humans. I don’t use plastic food containers, because they can leach hazardous substances when they’re heated in the microwave; I use glass or ceramic containers instead. I go without monthly bug control service, and I don’t opt for optional stain protection treatments for upholstery or floor coverings. I use only low-VOC paint.
I also quit using polycarbonate sport bottles and switched to an aluminum container instead. Within the last three weeks, Nalgene, which is a very big name in these polycarbonate containers used by hikers and sports enthusiasts, announced it’s going to eliminate all containers derived from BPA.
Another thing: a lot of these chemicals settle in dust in people’s homes and offices, so vacuuming and dusting once a week can help. In your kitchen, you can opt for hard-aluminized pots and pans instead of Teflon or coated cookware.
Ask questions about the things you buy. I urge people to read labels, and if something isn’t answered by a label, I really encourage people to call the manufacturer or retailer to get their questions answered.