article related to MCS

Discussion in 'Fibromyalgia Main Forum' started by AuntTammie, Jan 4, 2010.

  1. AuntTammie

    AuntTammie New Member

    There was an article in the online Washington Post today called "Use of potentially harmful chemicals kept secret under law" that is quite disturbing. Since many of us are affected by MCS I thought I'd mention it here. It does not talk about perfumes, but about other chemicals, and the lack of regulation (which does extend to perfumes - that is just not brought up in the article). I knew that many of these things were not regulated, but I did not realize just how extreme the situation really is. They do not even have to release info about what is contained in their products when someone is in the ER having a life threatening reaction and the Dr needs to know.

    Basically, there is a law saying that companies can apply to have their chemical contents kept secret from everyone (inc the FDA) in order to protect them from competitors. They can literally put anything they want in there and not have to tell anyone what is there, no matter how dangerous it might be. So, the bottom line is all about money, as usual. They are clearly saying that protecting their profits from competitors is more important than people's health and ultimately, their lives! Aren't patents enough?
    [This Message was Edited on 01/04/2010]
    [This Message was Edited on 01/04/2010]
  2. simonedb

    simonedb Member

    well that is disturbing. hey do you have a link to it?
    a friend of mine, a journalist, had told me a couple years ago about companies using those nanoparticles and how its not well understood or regulated.
  3. simonedb

    simonedb Member

    good reminder glen
    my friends and i are about to do the cabbage diet to get over the holiday temptations
    I got the recipes from here
    will make it with fresh vegies though
    man its like that movie "safe" nothin nowhere is safe....what to do ...
  4. TeaBisqit

    TeaBisqit Member

    Alot of chemicals seep into our foods from packaging. You can even smell it in there. Like the soups where you're supposed to microwave them in the container. I had one a few weeks ago, and I smelled the rubber/plastic packaging in the soup and couldn't finish it at all. I felt like I was having the chemicals instead of the soup.

    Frozen entrees that are microwaved in the containers, who knows what is seeping in there.

    There are just so many things. Styrofoam cups aren't safe and we still use alot of them.

    Even fast food places that microwave your burger with packaging on it. It all gets into the food.

    The only real way to eat healthy is to grow the stuff yourself and boil, steam or bake it. Other than that, you'll most likely be getting something unsafe in it.
  5. simonedb

    simonedb Member

    I emailed my friend who researched nanoparticles and here is some info he sent me, the website he lists didnt work for me but I am in a hurry so no time to figure that out, will come back and correct later if nec.:

    I don't believe it's a law as much as a loophole in the existing regulations. Basically, companies that develop nanoparticles patent them because of the unique and novel properties particles take on at the nanoscale. But in the same breath these companies argue that the government shouldn't regulate nanoparticles because they're just smaller versions of already regulated materials, which is true. But take something like carbon, which is inert at the macroscale, becomes very reactive and potentially toxic at the nanascale (carbon nanoparticles are called fullerenes and are used in a range of consumer goods... sometimes they're referred to as nanotubes)

    An EXCELLENT resource for what consumer products contain nanoparticles is run by UW-Madison scientists...

    It'll creep you out at first, especially when you realize how many foods use nanoparticles.... but knowledge is power I guess.

    t's hard to know what food products they're in because without regulations they don't need to disclose it. breyer's ice cream, for example, uses nanoparticles in its ice cream tuned to a certain illuminescence to make the ice cream more appealing. sometimes omega-3 fatty acid infused foods are nanoparticles. a lot of food research regards packaging. nanoparticles can behave like messengers because they emit light and radio waves, so Kraft was looking for ways to engineer a nanoparticle that would zap bacteria's in foods to prevent spoilage. there's so much being done out there that ya just gotta read about it to get a sense of how it affects you.
  6. AuntTammie

    AuntTammie New Member

    if you google the title, (mentioned in first post) it will also come up

    some key points:

    (****** are my notes)

    >>>"Of the 84,000 chemicals in commercial use in the United States -- from flame retardants in furniture to household cleaners -- nearly 20 percent are secret, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, their names and physical properties guarded from consumers and virtually all public officials (******even guarded from virtually all public officials - so the people who are supposed to be protecting us do not even have access to the info they would need to determine safety******) under a little-known federal provision. "


    >>>"Under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, manufacturers must report to the federal government new chemicals they intend to market. But the law exempts from public disclosure any information that could harm their bottom line. (*****like I said, the ONLY thing they care about is money*****)

    Government officials, scientists and environmental groups say that manufacturers have exploited weaknesses in the law to claim secrecy for an ever-increasing number of chemicals. In the past several years, 95 percent of the notices for new chemicals sent to the government requested some secrecy, according to the Government Accountability Office. About 700 chemicals are introduced annually. "


    >>>"Although a number of the roughly 17,000 (******that's an awful lot!*****) secret chemicals may be harmless, manufacturers have reported in mandatory notices to the government that many pose a "substantial risk" to public health or the environment. In March, for example, more than half of the 65 "substantial risk" reports filed with the Environmental Protection Agency involved secret chemicals. (**** so they have to report that a new chemical could pose a substantial risk, but they don't have to disclose what it is and they can still use it, and do so without letting the public know that it could be harmful*****)

    "You have thousands of chemicals that potentially present risks to health and the environment," said Richard Wiles, senior vice president of the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization that documented the extent of the secret chemicals through public-records requests from the EPA. "It's impossible to run an effective regulatory program when so many of these chemicals are secret."


    >>>"The identities of the chemicals are known to a handful of EPA employees who are legally barred from sharing that information with other federal officials, state health and environmental regulators, foreign governments, emergency responders and the public. (******* so essentially we have no way of knowing what is safe, and what is the point of having regulators if they are not even given access to the info?*******)


    >>>"Last year, a Colorado nurse fell seriously ill after treating a worker involved at a chemical spill at a gas-drilling site. The man, who later recovered, appeared at a Durango hospital complaining of dizziness and nausea. His work boots were damp; he reeked of chemicals, the nurse said.

    Two days later, the nurse, Cathy Behr, was fighting for her life. Her liver was failing and her lungs were filling with fluid. Behr said her doctors diagnosed chemical poisoning and called the manufacturer, Weatherford International, to find out what she might have been exposed to.

    Weatherford provided safety information.....But because ZetaFlow has confidential status, the information did not include all of its ingredients.

    Mark Stanley, group vice president for Weatherford's pumping and chemical services, said in a statement that the company made public all the information legally required. (*****legally required? again obviously, no one cared about saving this woman's life - just about keeping their bottom line protected and only providing the Drs with the minimally required info, which in essence is useless bc they were not required by law to reveal the ingredients that were threatening her life*****)

    Behr said the full ingredient list should be released. "I'd really like to know what went wrong," said Behr, 57, who recovered but said she still has respiratory problems." (******She did live but has sustained permanent damage and has no recourse & no way to treat it bc the company has the law on its side*******)


    >>>"People who were submitting information to the EPA saw that you can claim that virtually anything is confidential and get away with it," Owens said.

    The handful of EPA officials privy to the identity of the chemicals do not have other information that could help them assess the risk, said Lynn Goldman, a former EPA official and a pediatrician and epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. "


    >>>"Independent researchers, who often provide data to policymakers and regulators, also have been unable to study the secret chemicals. "


    >>>"My concern is we're using chemicals and we have no idea what the long-term effects might be or whether or not they're harmful," said Susan Klosterhaus, an environmental scientist at the San Francisco Estuary Institute"


    >>>"They said the company (***just one company mentioned in the article****) strongly supports keeping sensitive business information out of public view.(****I believe that the public should be informed, but as it stands, this is not even just about keeping info out of the public view - it is keeping it out of the view of those who are supposed to be determining if something is safe for people and the environment.*****) "This is essential for ensuring the long-term competitiveness of U.S. industry," the officials said in the statement. (******as I said before, aren't patents enough protection?, and competition serves a lot of good purposes - keeping people and the environment safe is one of those****)[This Message was Edited on 01/05/2010]
    [This Message was Edited on 01/05/2010]
    [This Message was Edited on 01/05/2010]
  7. simonedb

    simonedb Member

    what more can I say :)
    thanks for the info!