Nexus - 0702 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

If a product is labelled: Ingestion by mouth, nose or skin is: And effects on the body are: Fatal if swallowed. Do not breathe] Corrosive. Causes eye and skin damage, POISON vapour in either spray mist or dust form. | and/or skin irritation. In case of contact Gi Do not get in eyes, on skin or clothes. | with skin or eyes, immediately flush with Wear goggles, face shield and rubber } plenty of water. DANGER gloves when handling. (First aid proce- dure required on label.) Fatal if swallowed (only it will require a] Detrimental. Causes eye and skin irrita- greater amount, and a longer period of } tion. In case of contact with skin or eyes, time, than the above). Do not breathe | immediately flush with plenty of water. WARNING vapour in either spray mist or dust form. Do not get in eyes, on skin or clothes. Wear goggles and rubber gloves. (First- aid procedure required on label.) Fatal if swallowed (only it will require an] Detrimental. Causes eye and skin irrita- even greater amount, as well as a longer } tion. In case of contact with skin or eyes, CAUTION period of time, than the above). Do not} immediately flush with plenty of water. get in eyes, on skin or clothes. Wear goggles and rubber gloves. (First aid pro- cedure required on label.) POISON DANGER CAUTION What about Products from the Health Food Store? n case some people assume (as I once did) that detergents from [ health food store are healthier or safer, be assured that this is not the case. The following words and phrases might mean something to us in everyday usage, but they have no legal mean - ing: "natural"; "ecologically safe"; "environmentally friendly". "Biodegradable" is a legal term, but it simply means that the chemicals in the product will return to the earth in 99 years. Chemicals may be safe for the environment, which can absorb, assimilate, and transform them. But those same chemicals are still unsafe for humans, who cannot adapt to them or convert them. Jn other words, we can still be poisoned by "natural" and "organic" cleansers that are "ecologically safe" and "environ - mentally friendly". These words are advertising ploys. Epstein, authors of The Safe Shopper's Bible, write: "...based on the EPA's own estimates, residues of sixty carcinogenic [allow- able] pesticides on thirty foods that may be eaten in just one day would result in about sixty-four thousand excess cancers a year, more than 10 per cent of all current cancer deaths."’ These esti- mates do not include cancer from (permissibly) undisclosed pesti- cides, allowable dyes, "acceptable" levels of hormones in meats, (again, allowable) radiation in food, water and air, and the interac- tions of any of those chemicals. The EPA, in implementing its current policy, is breaking the Delaney Amendment law. Appended by Congressmember James Delaney to a 1958 law requested by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the amendment stated that "no additive may be permitted in any amount if the tests show that it produces cancer when fed to man [sic] or animals or by other appropriate tests".* Food and chemical manufacturers are required to test additives for cancer before putting products on the market and to submit the results to the FDA—yet the FDA currently claims that the law is unenforceable. The food industry, chemical manufac- turers, the Nutrition Council of the American Medical Association and even some FDA commissioners have tried to get the Delaney Amendment repealed ever since it was written into law. * The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)—reported by Steinman and Epstein as an "independent" regulatory agency, created in 1972, with jurisdiction of over more than 15,000 prod- ucts—claims that because consumer exposure to carcinogens is minimal, health hazards are likewise minimal. However, as I explained earlier, saying that a poison is only a little toxic is like saying that a woman is only a Jittle pregnant. As Steinman and Epstein corroborate: "The overwhelming consensus in the inde- pendent scientific community is that no safe exposure threshold to a carcinogen exists [emphasis added]."” * The FDA, probably the most well-known regulatory agency, commands more prestige than it does consumer protection. Although many ingredients approved by the FDA have been shown to cause major health problems for a significant number of consumers, these ingredients are nonetheless permitted in Deception in our Consumer-Unfriendly Labelling Laws Despite what most Americans have been led to believe, an alarming majority of chemicals and additives are either inade- quately tested or else not tested at all. Our labelling laws are full of loopholes, and the even minimal protection to which con- sumers are legally entitled is seldom enforced. In addition to the issues already discussed, there are other serious problems with labelling laws, many of which often contradict each other. 1. The various government and non-government agencies in the United States responsible for regulating chemicals have neglected protecting the consumer in favour of industrial profits. For instance: * Manufacturers are required by the federal government to dis- close whether or not their product is acutely poisonous (as opposed to poisonous over a longer period of time), irritating, caustic or flammable; but they are not required to reveal if their products are carcinogenic, contain neurotoxins or harm the repro- ductive organs. * The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), instead of prop- erly labelling and phasing out carcinogenic and neurotoxic chemi- cals, allows "acceptable" levels of pesticides on foods, justifying it as a "negligible risk". However, as David Steinman and Samuel 46 - NEXUS WARNING FEBRUARY — MARCH 2000