“As the United States comes to grips with the climate crisis, fossil fuels will slowly recede from being primary sources of energy. That’s the good news. But the bad news is that the petrochemical industry is counting on greatly increasing the production of plastics and toxic chemicals made from fossil fuels to profit from its reserves of oil and gas.
That transition is why the challenges of climate, plastic pollution and chemical toxicity — which at first might each seem like distinct problems — are actually interrelated and require a systems approach to resolve. The danger is that if we focus on only a single metric, like greenhouse gas emissions, we may unintentionally encourage the shift from fuel to plastics and chemicals that are also unsafe and unsustainable.
Already, according to a 2018 report from the International Energy Agency, petrochemicals, which are made from petroleum and natural gas, “are rapidly becoming the largest driver of global oil demand.”
Petrochemicals are ubiquitous in everyday products, and many of them are poisoning us and our children. Stain repellents, flame retardants, phthalates and other toxics are contributing to cancer, falling sperm counts, obesity and a host of neurological, reproductive and immune problems, research has shown.”
This is 10/10. My last NYT piece I can share this month in its entirety. It is appropriate, because the increases in the production of plastic pose a serious threat to life as we love it. A lot of the cancer and other diseases that we have, or will have, are related the poisonous pollution we put in our environments, and then goes into our bodies.
“Around 7 in the morning, Monu, 13, lifts his mosquito netting and crawls out of bed onto a dirt floor. Outside, his mother cooks breakfast over an open fire.
A few miles across New Delhi, the world’s most polluted capital, 11-year-old Aamya finally gives in to her mom’s coaxing. She climbs out of bed and treads down the hall, past an air purifier that shows the pollution levels in glowing numbers.”
David Lindsay Jr.
Hamden, CT | based on my NYT Comment:
Wonderful, horrible story, thank you to all who made this piece with its product of offering some painful clarity. My favorite class at the Foster School of Business at the University of Washington in Seattle, was on Organization Development taught by Cecil Bell. The basic premise of Organization Development is that most people are natural problem solvers. If you get the right people together and give them good data, they will normally want to think and work to solve the problems that they now can see. This kind of excellent data gathering could lead to many good works. While Family planning might appear to go to the top of the list. if you read the many most recommended comments, you see that the main problems in India are too many wood burning stoves, fossil fuel burning vehicles, and farmers burning their waste, rather than adopting cleaner methods of sustainable farming. There is way too much dirty energy being used. It is time for India to step up and become famous for something other than maintaining its status as one of the most corrupt governments and business economies in the world.
April 8, 2011
Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P)
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.
Washington, DC 20460-0001
Re: Petition for a Ban on Triclosan [EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0548; FRL–8852–8]
To Whom It May Concern:
Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a non-profit public health and environmental research and advocacy organization based in Washington, DC. We work to combat the health risks from chemical contamination of food, water, consumer products and the environment. As a co-signer to the 2010 Citizen Petition for a Ban on Triclosan, EWG strongly supports a suspension of non-medical uses of triclosan while EPA reexamines the safety of currently registered uses. We are particularly concerned that EPA has not comprehensively assessed the safety of cumulative exposures of triclosan for the developing fetus, infant and child.
Triclosan has been used for 40 years as an antimicrobial ingredient in consumer and commercial products. Despite widespread concerns about the chemical’s toxicity—the fact that the chemical is detected in the majority of Americans, and its potential to harm aquatic life and form toxic byproducts in water or the environment—there are few restrictions on its use. The American Medical Association does not recommend use of antimicrobial products in the home (Tan 2002), stating: “No data support the efficacy or necessity of antimicrobial agents in such products, and a growing number of studies suggest increasing acquired bacterial resistance to them.” According to a Food and Drug Administration Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee, triclosan soaps are no better than plain soap and water for preventing the spread of infections or reducing bacteria on the skin (FDA 2005).
EWG research finds that:
- A wide range of home products contain triclosan and contribute to exposures. EWG research shows that with no assessment of health risks to infants, regulators have approved triclosan for use in 140 different types of consumer products including liquid hand soap, toothpaste, undergarments and children’s toys (EWG 2008). This exposure has been allowed despite the fact that the chemical ends up in mothers’ breast milk and poses potential toxicity to fetal and childhood development.
- Triclosan commonly contaminates the human body. EWG biomonitoring research has found triclosan in 42 of the 49 participants tested, including all 20 adolescent girls (EWG 2008).
Source: EWG Urges Ban On Toxic Soft Soap Additive | EWG