Chemical Sensitivity and the New EU Chemical Law

The Chicago Tribune published an interesting article yesterday, called "Exposed!", about chemical sensitivity to common chemicals. This complements a previous post written in DweezelJazz: "What Is Multiple Chemical Sensitivity?".

The article points out that the disorder known as multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) has been described since the 1940s and that today it affects an estimated 12% of the population. It isn't officially recognized by the U.S. medical establishment, but it is recognized by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and the Americans With Disabilities Act includes MCS as a disability.

The article also gives short accounts of people's experiences with chemical sensitivity. It illustrates how difficult it is to comprehend the nature of the situation even when you know or live with someone who experiences it. Marny Turvil, a mother of two, discovered five years ago that she has MCS. Her mother suffers from it also. Turvil is quoted as saying: 'In typical mainstream fashion I thought she was nuts. Then I started having clear symptoms.' Turvil is further quoted: 'People will discredit things that threaten their well-being. To be told products you use every day are full of dangerous chemicals is a very threatening thing.'

Mainstream doctors don't recognize MCS. This is because the disorder has not been understood in medical terms; a scientific mechanism of explanation for the cause and effect has not yet been defined. Almost every aspect of modern life includes the use of innumerable chemicals in all manner of products from foods to cleaning agents to building materials...the list goes on. Our economy is based on the sale of all these items and we have grown highly dependent on the products available. It isn't convenient to find that we may need to change these things. As a result, there has been little mainstream funding dedicated to research into the disorder.

It is noticeable though that there are more frequent news items in the Press either directly addressing or skirting around the issue as is demonstrated for example in an earlier post "Toxic Fumes on Airline Flights: What's It All About?"

Public places, including hospitals, can pose grave difficulties, and can even be life-threatening, for people with MCS depending on the severity of their sensitivity. A nurse named Keith, who has MCS and has experienced difficulties when being treated at hospital, wrote an article called "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: A Hidden Disability" on the NurseLinkup blog to alert the nursing community.

On June 1st of this year a new EU chemicals law known as REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals) was passed, requiring the registration and safety testing of tens of thousands of chemicals. For the first time, chemical companies will have to provide basic health and environmental safety data on the chemicals they produce. An article entitled "Beginners Guide to REACH" published by Greenpeace some years ago states that previously only chemicals that started production after 1981 required this data, which is a small fraction of chemicals on the market.

According to a BBC article, "Analysis: New EU chemicals law", manufacturers will have to register safety data for around 30,000 chemicals already in use.

There are around 100,000 chemicals for which data is not available. The 30,000 chemicals included in this system of legislation were chosen because they're produced in the highest volumes and/or are already known to have dangerous properties. The BBC article says that "these include thousands of everyday products - for example, flame retardants on sofa coverings, musks used in shampoos, and paints of all kinds - as well as specialised chemicals used only by industry."

The first deadline for registration is in 2010. This is for chemicals of the highest concern, (the European Commission estimates there are 1,500 chemicals in this category) which include carcinogens, mutagens and substances toxic to reproductive health. This deadline also applies to chemicals produced in quantities of over 1,000 tonnes per year.

The second deadline is 2013 for chemicals produced in quantities of 100 to 1,000 tonnes per year. And there is a third deadline of 2018 for substances produced in 1 to 100 tonnes per year.

The description of this law demonstrates how little legislation and scientific knowledge is available for the many products and chemicals used in our society today. The effects they are having is not accounted for, either on us as human beings or on our world and its wildlife.

While the new law is a big step in the right direction, we as consumers can have a huge impact as a result of how we spend our money. There are products available on the market through health food stores and catalog companies that do already account for their ingredients. We can help to safeguard ourselves, our loved ones and our environment right away by taking consumer action.

Some links that may be helpful in finding some of these products are Janice's and The HEALTHY HOUSE Ltd. While I can't vouch for all of the products these companies sell, I have bought some very good items from each. As with every purchase, it pays to investigate the product as thoroughly as possible.

There are also ways to clean very effectively using simple, and coincidentally economical, substances such as vinegar and baking soda, which I'll discuss in another article.

Toxic Fumes on Airline Flights: What's It All About?

In a recent post Becoming More Aware of Toxins In Our Environment, I referred to an article published on June 10, 2007 by The Independent called, "Toxic fumes on planes 'threaten thousands of passengers each year". This article reports that scientific research has shown that fumes present in planes have rendered pilots incapable of flying their aircraft safely. One of the symptoms cited was fatigue, along with many others which coincidentally are all typical of those experienced by people with chemical sensitivity.Two more articles have appeared on this subject since then. On June 19, 2007 NewScientist published an article titled: "Toxic fumes impairing our ability to fly, say pilots". It reports that pilots say that toxic fumes on planes are poisoning them, rendering them unable to fly and that they are campaigning for 'aerotoxic syndrome' to be recognized as a disease. The article also refers to symptoms: "Symptoms related to long term exposure purportedly include neurological and respiratory problems, memory loss, difficulties with speech, and chronic fatigue." This list of symptoms is remarkably similar to those experienced by people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.

A third article was released today, June 25, by the BBC: "Tired pilots 'compromise safety'". This article makes no mention of the extended symptoms referred to in the other two articles cited above. Far along in the article it qualifies fatigue as 'chronic fatigue', which is known to be a common way of referring to a symptom related to an ongoing health condition, rather than incidental tiredness from lack of sleep. The paragraph with this reference reads: "Dr. Ian Perry, one of the country's leading consultants in aviation medicine, says the number of pilots coming to see him who are chronically fatigued has doubled over the last five years to four or five people a fortnight, he said."

This means that five years ago the doctor was seeing at least two pilots a fortnight who were chronically fatigued. This illustrates that this isn't a new problem. Given the importance of it, both from the perspective of pilots who are becoming ill in statistically significant numbers, and secondly, to passengers, it would be reasonable to expect the aviation industry to have taken faster action to remedy the situation.

There is another BBC article published 9 years ago, dated September 1998, "Health Cover up over pilot fatigue" in which the same Dr. Ian Perry, the examiner of pilots for the Civil Aviation Authority and the Federal Aviation Authority, tells that many doctors are grounding pilots for fatigue, but are giving another reason on official reports. The article says: "He admits he himself covers up the extent of the problem, which could be a factor in plane crashes." The article continues: "Research shows 70% of crashes are due to pilot error."

The last paragraph of the NewScientist article from the 19th of this month, (mentioned above) quotes Jonathan Nicholson, a spokesperson for the UK's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) as saying: "Everybody recognises that there are incidents where fumes enter cabins. We will look at further work on the issue if long-term health issues are proven."

In his blog, Seth Godin recently wrote a really relevant post called Responsibility. He calls marketing people to attention with examples, demonstrating just how influential marketing tactics are. He says: "If you get asked to market something, you're responsible. You're responsible for the impacts, the costs, the side effects and the damage. You killed that kid. You poisoned that river. You led that fight. If you can't put your name on it, I hope you'll walk away. If only 10% of us did that, imagine the changes. Imagine how proud you'd be of your work."

That is great advice, not just for marketers, but for every single one of us to strive for -- a call to live honestly, courageously, truthfully.