Boundless Bodies: Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Places
A woman loses both her legs in the aftermath of tampon-induced Toxic Shock Syndrome. A child suffers brain damage years after innocently biting a lead-painted toy. A man spends nineteen days on a ventilator after waterproofing his boots.
We hear these stories on the news, but quickly tune them out. Our apathetic attitudes seem rational. In a world plagued by social injustices and political catfights, a report divulging the cancer-inducing components of your favorite lotion shrinks in importance. Yet, how can you be sure the next big headline will not be about you?
Our bodies are our most personal possession; we therefore ought to understand how our bodies interact with the world. In Bodily Natures: Science, Environment and Material Self, Stacy Alaimo explores the interconnection between human bodies and nonhuman natures, including ecological systems, chemical agents, and other actors. She refers to human corporeality as “trans-corporeality,” which emphasizes that humanity is intermeshed with the morethan-human world. Trans-corporeality implores humans to think across bodies as part of an interconnected system. It forges the “human” with the “environment.”
To understand trans-corporeality more clearly, consider the porosity of bodies. In Labadie, Missouri, a town located next to a coal-fired power plant, the community experienced a spike in lung related health problems. The costly illnesses resulted from microscopic particulate matter and sulfur dioxide penetrating the human shell. Not as commonly discussed is the way non-human animals were also impacted by the same anthropogenic pollution. We cannot define our bodies as having well-defined boundaries because this mindset separates our bodies from the rest of the world. This allows us to become apathetic to the ways we affect and are affected by the world.
[pullquote]Not as commonly discussed is the way non-human animals were also impacted by the same anthropogenic pollution.[/pullquote]
Coal-related health problems are easily accepted; the idea that trans-corporeality applies to our interactions with consumer products is less popular. The beginning of this article refers to real stories in which chemicals in everyday products disrupted the lives of unsuspecting people. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), Americans use more than 100,000 chemicals and introduce 1,000 new chemicals each year. While many chemicals are completely harmless, some cause serious health risks. With so much at stake, it may be surprising that thousands of these chemicals have flooded our lives without adequate safety assessments.
[pullquote]Americans use more than 100,000 chemicals and introduce 1,000 new chemicals each year.[/pullquote]
Until very recently, the 1976 Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) was the national chemical regulation. It allowed any chemical to enter the market unless the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could prove it posed an “unreasonable risk.” In addition to the impossible task of testing every chemical on the market, the EPA lacked authority to regulate even well-documented carcinogens. This is because a judge denied the EPA’s ban on asbestos, a mineral proven to cause lung cancer, in 1991 and set a precedent to make it nearly impossible to ban dangerous chemicals. 40 years passed with thousands of chemicals flowing into supermarkets, grocery stores, and your home.
Fortunately, in 2016, Congress passed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. This new law corrects many of TSCA’s faults by making it easier to address risks posed by chemicals, requiring an enforceable schedule for reviewing chemicals, and expediting action on chemicals posing the greatest risks. While this law contains several loopholes and unnecessary activities that may divert resources, it is a huge step forward.
At this point in time, thousands of possibly dangerous chemicals are still on the market. It will take years for the EPA to complete investigations on even the highest priority chemicals. As individuals, we often halfheartedly point out that some products may cause cancer, yet we neglect to change our own behavior. Perhaps that is because once we admit our favorite products make us sick, we will be forced to confront a significant flaw in our comfortable lifestyle—and such a thought is too painful to consider. I insist we become mindful of what we allow into our bodies and what we release back into the environment.
[pullquote]As individuals, we often halfheartedly point out that some products may cause cancer, yet we neglect to change our own behavior. Perhaps that is because once we admit our favorite products make us sick, we will be forced to confront a significant flaw in our comfortable lifestyle—and such a thought is too painful to consider.[/pullquote]
Although I have not quite given up using deodorant, I nonetheless recognize that I can make small changes in my lifestyle, like using organic products. People interested in learning more information about consumer products can search the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep Cosmetics Database to find safety ratings and information about individual chemical components.
It is unreasonable (and arguably impossible) to expect consumers to filter out every potentially harmful chemical from their lives. However, until corporations and the government properly cooperate on regulating toxic chemicals, it would be wise to double check that what you allow in your body is actually safe. At the very least, if ingesting untested chemicals does not bother you, consider how your waste affects others’ bodies next time you toss your trash out of sight.
Sarah Greenberg ’19 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences and the Olin Business School. She can be reached at sarahgreenberg@wustl.edu.