Weekend Reading on Chemicals and Clothing
Fun new research: climbing shoes shed toxic chemicals into indoor gyms. Yay!
I feel like I’m going crazy.
The MAHA chronic disease report came out a few days ago, and at the release, a woman — sorry, there is no succinct way to describe who she is and why she is quoted so extensively by Fox News. She used to work in finance and is now the CEO of a five-month-old lobbying organization of health influencers called End Chronic Disease. Anyway, she said, “With Americans increasingly aware of the role that factors such as ultraprocessed foods, environmental toxins, stress, trauma and poor sleep play in chronic disease, the demand for action transcends partisanship.”
She’s not wrong. A new research review shows that chemical exposure from eating ultraprocessed food could contribute to health problems. And recent research shows that emulsifiers in ultraprocessed foods like ice cream could be contributing to your digestive problems. Other new research connects colorectal cancer to an unhealthy microbiome. (More fiber! Less processed food!)
And yet, the EPA is defunding research into PFAS on farms, rolling back limits on PFAS in drinking water, will likely gut the team that studies the health impact of chemicals, and has pretty much stopped enforcing environmental laws.
I mean, these studies I linked to above all had at least some funding support from NIH, which has pulled back sharply on funding research. Do we not want more research on this stuff? Are we just going to go on vibes from now on?
I just don’t understand how they can say one thing: “We need to reduce our exposure to chemicals” and then tear down every single structure that would reduce our exposure to chemicals.
It’s like seeing that your faucet is leaking, but instead of calling a plumber to fix it, you tear the pipes completely out of the wall and flood your home.
Trump said of the MAHA chronic disease report: “Unlike other administrations, we will not be silenced or intimidated by the corporate lobbyists or special interests, and I want this group to do what they have to do.”
RFK would like to ban the pesticide atrazine. Again, hard agree! But his chances are not looking good, given that he’s up against two former chemical and oil lobbyists who are in the Trump administration who do not want it, or any other pesticides, banned. The final MAHA report on chronic illness took a much softer stance on pesticides than anticipated. So, looks like there was some silencing going on.
Speaking of being a nonpartisan issue, the Trump administration has plans to bring the formerly nonpartisan Consumer Product Safety Commission, which institutes safety recalls for consumer products, under RFK’s agency. Once there, it could be put through mass layoffs just like all the other federal departments.
The CPSC is important. It’s the commission that banned lead, cadmium, and some phthalates from consumer products. In partnership with Customs and Border Protection, it tests consumer products coming in to the country for these hazardous chemicals, and can block or destroy shipments. The CPSC also has a handy website called SaferProducts.gov where you can peruse all the public reports of reactions. Go check it out — I love how transparent it is.
Should the CPSC be testing more and recalling more and checking for a longer list of chemicals? Yes! Is making it a partisan agency so it can be defunded and shrunk going to get us there? No, clearly not.
I mean, this is not a popular move. In June 2021, a large group of surprising bedfellows—including the American Apparel & Footwear Association, the American Chemistry Council, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Consumer Reports, Earthjustice, and the Natural Resources Defense Council—banded together to send a letter asking Congress to give the CPSC more money. “The agency is significantly underfunded and therefore short staffed compared to other federal health and safety regulatory agencies,” the letter said, pointing out that its budget is “by far the smallest among federal health and safety regulatory agencies,” and it struggles to keep up with the work of overseeing fifteen thousand different types of consumer products.
The American Chemistry Council and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners signed the letter!
This is not what they wanted. It’s not what I wanted. It’s not really what anyone wanted. The only people who benefit from a weak CPSC are executives at companies that make dangerous products.
This is undeveloped country stuff. If we keep going in this direction, sure, fashion manufacturing could come back to the U.S. But it will bring with it black, foul rivers and air pollution akin to Bangladesh.
Make America India? Make America Guatemala? That is wht this feels like.
Here are the rest of the informative things I’ve read in the past two weeks: