Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Salon

Chemical-by-chemical bans leave people at risk

Rick Smith
CMAJ October 13, 2009 181 (8) 556; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.091538
Rick Smith
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Ask any person on the street what image comes to mind in response to the word “pollution” and it’s liable to be a belching smokestack or an idling car. Few would say a familiar overstuffed sofa or a friendly toy such as a rubber duck. Yet increasingly the most worrisome and damaging pollutants affecting the health of Canadians are not the odoriferous industrial-grade variety that visibly waft from Canada’s dwindling manufacturing centres (though these remain important), they are the invisible toxic ingredients of umpteen consumer products that litter our homes and offices. Some of these have achieved recent notoriety. For example, bisphenol A (BPA) — a known endocrine disruptor — is a component of polycarbonate plastic in baby bottles and in the resin linings of virtually every tin can in every Canadian kitchen cupboard.

My coauthor Bruce Lourie and I set out to draw back the curtain on this strange world of toxic chemicals in unlikely places in our new book Slow Death by Rubber Duck. To illustrate the ease with which these pollutants accumulate in the human body we experimented on ourselves, attempting to raise and lower levels of seven toxic chemicals (BPA, phthalates, brominated flame retardants, perfluorinated “non-stick” chemicals, triclosan, pesticides and mercury) in our blood and urine through the performance of common activities. Though our sample size of two is admittedly modest, the results were unprecedented and astonishing (since the book’s publication the BPA results have been replicated with a much larger study). 1 It turns out that the choices we make as consumers have a profound, and very rapid, effect on the pollution levels in our bodies. Through doing things that people do every day (e.g., cooking in polycarbonate plastic), Rick increased his urine levels of monoethyl phthalate (an ingredient in shampoos and hand creams) by 22 times, his levels of BPA by 7.5 times, and his levels of triclosan (a common antibacterial agent) by a mind-blowing 2900 times. Bruce increased his mercury levels by 2.5 times. All of these chemicals have been identified as contributing to serious human health problems.

Figure1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Image courtesy of Fred Sebastian

The good news is that governments are finally taking action to protect the environment and human health by restricting or banning many of these toxic chemicals. In April 2008, Canada became the first jurisdiction in the world to ban BPA from baby bottles. Similarly positive recent action has been taken in this country on phthalates in children’s toys, deca BDE in consumer electronics and siloxanes (a silicone-based substance found in haircare products). Even the most unlikely governmental champions are getting into the act. In 2008, a strong national ban on phthalates in toys was unanimously adopted — over vehement industry objection —by the US Senate and signed into law by that well-known advocate of the precautionary principle: George W. Bush.

All this is very welcome, but given that there are tens of thousands of chemicals in commerce — many of which were placed on the market before the advent of proper safety testing —can we really clean up our mess by duking it out one chemical at a time? Certainly not. The time has come to ask some more profound and sweeping questions about chemical regulation. With many less-toxic chemical formulations available, why are we even getting boxed into the ludicrous discussion of how to risk manage the continued use of these toxic ingredients in consumer products? One exciting new approach is to simply get rid of entire applications of chemical families if the uses are frivolous and potentially damaging: the recent Ontario and Quebec (and soon, we hope, New Brunswick) laws to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides are examples of this (and passed, in part, through the support of organizations representing doctors and nurses). The Kid-Safe Chemical Act is gaining steam in the US Congress and advances the commonsense proposition that if a synthetic chemical is detectable in infant cord blood (and there are hundreds of them) they should be phased out of production unless industry can conclusively demonstrate their safety.

The scientific evidence is clear: the toxic chemicals that form the basis of our modern lifestyle are the root cause of a considerable amount of human disease. Eliminating this threat is a challenge just as important, and requires as much ambition, as that which is necessary to combat climate change.

Footnotes

  • Rick Smith is Executive Director of Environmental Defence and coauthor, with Bruce Lourie, of Slow Death by Rubber Duck (Knopf Canada; 2009).

    Previously published at www.cmaj.ca

    Have you got an opinion about this article? Post your views at www.cmaj.ca. Potential Salon contributors are welcome to send a query to salon{at}cmaj.ca

REFERENCE

  1. 1.↵
    JL Carwile, HT Luu, LS Bassett, et al. Use of polycarbonate bottles and urinary bisphenol A concentrations. Environ Health Perspec 2009;9:1368–72. Available: www.ehponline.org/members/2009/0900604/0900604.pdf (accessed 2009 Aug. 25).
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 181 (8)
CMAJ
Vol. 181, Issue 8
13 Oct 2009
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Chemical-by-chemical bans leave people at risk
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Chemical-by-chemical bans leave people at risk
Rick Smith
CMAJ Oct 2009, 181 (8) 556; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.091538

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Chemical-by-chemical bans leave people at risk
Rick Smith
CMAJ Oct 2009, 181 (8) 556; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.091538
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCE
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • The law and physician-assisted dying
  • Care, compassion, respect
  • Revisiting Rodriguez
Show more Salon

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

Powered by HighWire