What do a pizza box, a polar bear and you have in common?
All carry a kind of industrial toxicant called polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl substances, or PFASs, that do two things: They make life convenient and they also appear to increase the risk of cancer.
The scientists I interviewed say that they try to avoid these chemicals in their daily lives, but they are pretty much unavoidable and are now found in animals all over the planet (including polar bears in Greenland and probably you and me).
Illustration: Yusha
PFASs are used to make nonstick frying pans, waterproof clothing, stain-resistant fabrics, fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, firefighting foam and thousands of other products. Many are unlabeled, so even chemists sometimes feel helpless.
This should be a moment when governments step up to protect citizens. However, from tobacco to lead paint to chemicals, industry has used donations, obfuscation and lobbying to defer regulation until the human casualties are too vast to be hidden.
PFASs are “a poster child” for what is wrong with chemical regulation in the US, says John Peterson Myers, chief scientist of Environmental Health Sciences, a research and publishing group in Virginia. PFASs are just about indestructible, so, for eons to come, they will poison our blood, our household dust, our water and the breast milk our babies drink.
Warnings of health risks from PFASs go back half a century and are growing more ominous. Last month, more than 200 scientists released a Madrid Statement warning of PFASs’ severe health risks. It was published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a peer-reviewed journal backed by the US National Institutes of Health.
The scientists cited research linking PFASs to testicular and kidney cancer, hypothyroidism, ulcerative colitis and other problems.
Arlene Blum is a chemist whose warnings about carcinogens have proved prophetic. In recent years, she has waged an increasingly successful campaign against modern flame-retardant chemicals because of evidence that they also cause cancer, but she told me that PFASs “are even a bigger problem than flame retardants.”
The chemical industry acknowledges that older, “long-chain” PFASs are a problem, but says that it is replacing them with “short-chain” versions that should be fine. It is true that there is less evidence against the short-chains, but that is perhaps because they have been studied less.
Americans expect that chemicals used in consumer products have been safety tested.
Not so. The vast majority of the 80,000 chemicals available for sale in the US have never been tested for effects on our health.
Any testing is being done on all of us. We are the guinea pigs.
The US Congress may finally pass new legislation regulating toxic chemicals, but it is so weak a bill that the chemical industry has embraced it. The Senate version is better than nothing, but, astonishingly, it provides for assessing high-priority chemicals at a rate of about only five a year and it is not clear that the House of Representatives will go that far.
Yes, of countless toxicants suspected of increasing the risk of cancer, obesity, epigenetic damage and reproductive problems, the US would commit to testing five each year. And that would actually be progress.
For safety reasons, Europe and Canada already restrict hundreds of chemicals routinely used in the US. Perhaps the danger of tainted brands and lost sales abroad — not the risk to Americans — will motivate US companies to adopt overseas limits.
Scientists are already taking precautions and weighing trade-offs in their personal lives. Thomas Zoeller, a biology professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, says he now avoids buying nonstick pans. University of Rhode Island oceanographer Rainer Lohmann told me that he is replacing carpets in his house with wood floors in part to reduce PFASs.
Green Science Policy Institute senior scientist Simona Balan avoids microwave popcorn and stain-resistant furniture.
Blum says she avoids buying certain nonstick products and waterproof products, but reluctantly uses a glide wax for backcountry skis that contains PFASs.
“Every time I spray it on, I realize the chemicals will be in my body for a very long time and on the planet for geologic time, perhaps longer than mankind,” Blum said. “But I do enjoy a good glide when I ski.”
Some brands, including Levi’s, Benetton and Victoria’s Secret, are pledging to avoid PFASs. Evaluations of the safety of products are available free at the GoodGuide and Skin Deep Web sites.
The chemical lobby is following the same script as the tobacco and lead lobbies a generation ago, throwing around campaign donations and lobbying muscle to delay regulation.
The chemical industry spent US$190 million lobbying in the last three years. If only it would devote such sums to developing safer products, rather than to defending its right to produce suspected carcinogens.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations