Jan/Feb
2008
THE NEXUS INTERVIEW
Mark Schapiro: toxic warrior
An interview with Ravi Dykema
Photos by Randi Lynn Beach
The cosmetics you use every day, the toys your children
play with, the air inside the car you drive, all these introduce chemicals
into your body. Are some of these chemicals toxic at the levels to which
you are exposed? And if so, what can we do to protect ourselves? It is
a question that scientists ask, governments ask, industry leaders ask,
and ordinary people ask. And many of the answers are unsettling . . .
We have reported on this question previously in Nexus, in interviews with
David
Steinman, author of The Safe Shoppers Bible. We also interviewed
Theo Colburn Ph.D., who is one of the world’s leading authorities
on endocrine disrupting chemicals.
Now Mark Schapiro, a veteran investigative reporter, has written Exposed,
The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and What’s at Stake for
American Power (Chelsea Green, 2007). He says, “This book reveals
how in many ways consumers in this country are being left exposed to environmental
hazards to which their European peers are protected.”
Mr. Schapiro has amassed an award-winning track record over two decades
of writing focusing on environmental and international affairs. His work
has appeared in Harper’s, The Nation, Mother
Jones, New York Times Magazine and The Atlantic Monthly.
He has also been a correspondent on NOW with Bill Moyers, FRONTLINE/World,
and public radio’s Marketplace. Mr. Schapiro is the editorial director
of the Center for Investigative Reporting in San Francisco. He spoke with
Nexus’ Ravi Dykema by phone from his office in Berkeley, California.
RD: In your book, Exposed, you claim that Americans
are regularly exposed to nasty chemicals. Could you give us some examples
of what we’re being exposed to?
MS: The main issue here is an array of chemicals used
in everyday products, from cosmetics and toys to electronics
and automobiles.
RD: Like the smell of a new car?
MS: Exactly. That’s the smell of chemicals called
phthalates that come off a dashboard in a new car, or off the upholstery.
And you can also feel those chemicals— for example, in your shower
certain. That soft, nicely rippling, plastic shower curtain also contains
phthalates. Or the little plastic toys that small children play with,
rubber ducks and giraffes and all those goofy animals, are soft and gooey
so they don’t hurt children.
The reason cars smell that way, and the reason certain plastics are soft
and pliable is because many of them contain phthalates, a synthetic substance
that makes plastic soft and pliable. The problem is, they appear to be
very toxic. Phthalates have been banned for use in toys by the European
Union (EU) because of evidence suggesting that exposure to phthalates
can lead to a decrease in the production of testosterone, which is a pretty
important male sexual hormone. This can distort the sexual development
of young boys in particular, and it can contribute to deformities in boys’
genitalia.
The EU has considered the substantial body of evidence from scientists
in America and in Europe, that phthalates pose a danger to kids, and has
opted to ban the use of phthalates in toys. In the United States, this
substance remains perfectly legal, and many widely available toys contain
phthalates. Other countries, including Korea and Taiwan, are following
the lead of the EU and banning plastics that contain phthalates. So we’ve
got toys being produced in Chinese factories that do not contain phthalates
being sent to the Europeans, and toys that do contain phthalates being
sent to the United States. And not only the United States; kids in Mali,
Namibia, Paraguay and other countries that have no regulations regarding
phthalates are playing with these toys.
RD: I would think the Chinese would just manufacture one toy and
ship it all over the world, including Europe. Why do they produce a version
that contains phthalates?
MS: The real situation is this: about three or four multi-national
toy companies, like Mattel and Hasbro and maybe Disney, have agreed to
take phthalates out of their toys aimed at 3-year-olds. Why? Because they
have a huge engagement in the European market. But many other manufacturers
that don’t have a big brand name are under absolutely no obligation
whatsoever to take the phthalates out of their toys—so Americans
get the stuff that can’t be sent to Europe.
RD: What other chemicals are we exposed to in our everyday lives?
MS: There’s an array of carcinogens, mutagens and
reproductive toxins in cosmetics and personal care items. These have been
banned from the use of cosmetics for sale in Europe, but they’re
legal here. We know many of the chemicals that cause cancer and reproductive
problems, because the Europeans published a list of them on something
called the “Negative List.”
RD: Most Americans think the Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
or some other government agency, is safeguarding our health in regards
to toxic exposures. We think that if a harmful chemical leeches into our
bodies as a result of our contact with some ordinary product, it gets
reported or someone initiates a lawsuit. We think that companies are policing
themselves to avoid such lawsuit, and therefore we’re somewhat protected.
Is that an error?
MS: It’s a huge illusion, and one that lies at
the heart of Americans’ perception of their relation to their government.
RD: So someone’s baby boy with deformed genitals isn’t
going to produce a big hassle for a toy company some day?
MS: Well, that’s a good way to put it. If your
baby is deformed, you as a parent are faced with the challenge. You have
to prove that the baby’s exact condition is related to the precise
exposure to a particular substance some five or ten years after the exposure
occurred.
RD: I see. But it would sure help if I can cite the laws in the
EU that have long ago banned that chemical for this very reason.
MS: Yes, it would. Officials from American companies
who I interviewed, essentially said we don’t need strong regulation
in the United States because we’ve got this tort system, this liability
system, that holds them accountable. If they screw up, you can sue them
for a hundred million dollars; that acts as a check on corporate behavior.
That’s often the argument that’s used by industry. Well, that
presumes that there exists what you’d call retributive justice,
meaning that after the damage is done, you can get damages. It also presumes
you can succeed in a court situation. It’s extremely difficult to
even get a case before a judge and a jury. It’s very expensive,
and it takes a long time. And it’s extremely complicated; a liability
case requires proving, five or 10 years after the fact, after someone
has been exposed to many other substances along the way, that one certain
chemical caused his or her condition.
Using the torte system as a regulatory mechanism is extremely
inefficient and cumbersome; it takes years and years to accomplish. Of
course if you win, it’s quite a message across the market; it sends
powerful signals to companies that they’re taking a risk in pursuing
abusive policies. But the reality is, it’s a difficult route to
pursue. Having said all that, the changes in European regulations now
offer an interesting opportunity for product liability lawyers. In these
lawsuits, a key question is, “Could the product have been made safely?
Did the company make a decision not to take that safer route?” We
now clearly know that these products could have been—and are being--produced
more safely. That’s one of the things that scares the American industry.
RD: But a lot of people are proactive. Rather than waiting for
a lawsuit or government-imposed regulations, they’re buying organic
food, getting cosmetics from natural products stores and using chemical-free
cleaners.
Does that work?
MS: It’s a logical reaction. However, in the United
States, manufacturers aren’t required to disclose ingredients in
personal care products, household cleaners, cosmetics, toys or many other
products. So the best you can do is buy products that claim to use minimal
amounts of chemicals, and that the ingredients they are using are safe.
Let’s just presume that those manufacturers are telling the truth.
But we don’t really know for sure, since there’s no independent
authority assessing content of products or safety of ingredients. The
point is, in the United States, we don’t have any regulatory agency
enforcing the claims of any of these manufacturers. As a result you can
either err in either direction. You can presume that nothing is safe,
which is probably not true, or you can presume that everything is safe—the
presumption of most Americans—and that is clearly false.
RD: There’s another consideration here. It’s all well
and fine to protect ourselves by buying only natural and organic products.
But what about people who can’t afford those options? They still
have to buy toys and wash their faces and clean their houses.
MS: That’s a major area of concern. Some multinational
companies are beginning to adjust their standards upwards to meet those
of the EU. But the cheap, no-name stuff is produced by manufacturers who
don’t care about the European market; they just want to sell their
product to Americans. That stuff ends up at discount shops and dollar
stores that are disproportionately frequented by people with fewer resources.
Theoretically, they’re in more potential danger than people who
have the resources to afford more expensive products.
RD: What about regulations on a more local level? In your book
you said the city of San Francisco has prohibited phthalates in certain
products. Is that a success story?
MS: It’s a success story in that San Francisco
was the first city in the United States to impose some restraints on the
sale of phthalates. It also reveals something about the toy industry’s
position on this issue. Rather than say, “Okay, we’re going
to do in this city of 750,000 what our counterparts in Europe are already
doing for 480 million people, some toy companies sued the city of San
Francisco. They claimed that a city does not have the authority to take
such an action. The lawsuit is still outstanding, and has delayed implementation
of the law. In the meantime, there has been a new development: the State
of California passed a phthalate ban a few months ago, so they’ve
upped the ante.
RD: We know phthalates are potentially dangerous endocrine system
disruptors, but many other synthetic compounds in cosmetics and cleaning
products and so forth are also endocrine disruptors. Is the EU banning
these chemicals as well?
MS: They’ve banned carcinogens, which means chemicals
that cause cancer. They’ve banned mutagens, which means chemicals
that induce mutations in genes. They’ve banned other chemicals,
like sodium borate, that cause damage to the reproductive system of children.
There are so many toxic chemicals in everyday products. The EU’s
Negative List includes something like 400 chemicals.
RD: And while scientists in both the EU and the United States
have been studying these issues, you point out that European officials
draw different conclusions. Is it true they’re looking at the same
data?
MS: Yes, the level of sophisticated inquiry into environmental
health hazards is as highly developed in the United States as it is in
the EU. Dozens, if not hundreds, of scientists in the top research institutions
are conducting various assessments of the effects of chemicals on the
environment and on human health. The data is all there, mountains of peer-reviewed
scientific research on mutagens, reproductive toxins, endocrine disruptors,
much of it is suggesting actual dangers from these chemicals.
The question is, at what level do these chemicals cause harm? Here’s
where the interpretations differ. Let’s face it: we’re talking
about very, very small amounts here. You’re not going to put on
mascara or pick up a toy or wash your hair and get immediately sick. The
issue is the effect of these chemicals on human health once they’ve
accumulated in the body for five, 10, 20 years. And there’s the
question of multiple sources of accumulation, and possible interactions
between chemicals. The stuff you put on your eyes may have some chemical
correlation to the stuff you wash your hair with, which correlates to
the stuff in your new shower curtain that makes it soft and rippley, which
also combines with the heavy minerals that might be dripping into the
soil in your neighbor’s backyard. So, while the data is all there,
the debate continues over what exactly is a dangerous dose, and European
officials have different opinions compared to American officials.
But here’s a critical point: in trying to determine the dangerous
dose of a substance, you’ve said, “Okay, this chemical is
dangerous. At 2 mg per quart, it’s really dangerous; at 1 mg per
quart, it’s not really dangerous.” But you see, you’ve
already acknowledged that it is dangerous.
RD: We’ve done that with carcinogens. We eat carcinogens
all the time, but in amounts that are insignificant,
according to U.S. regulators.
MS: Exactly. The EU is looking at the accumulation of
chemicals over years and in combination with other substances.
What happens when substance Y mixes with substance X and substance Z?
We don’t know.
European officials are heading off problems by banning these substances
from the get-go. Meanwhile, in the United States, we’re still absorbed
in answering the question, “What dose of this chemical is safe,
even though we know that at some higher dose it is dangerous?”
RD: Are any of these countries investigating the possibility that
less toxic alternatives to these chemicals exist?
MS: Less toxic alternatives are there; manufacturers just have
to be prompted to look for them. That’s starting to happen in the
EU, but it’s not happening here.
RD: Why not? Is there a difference in the U.S. regulatory approach?
MS: Over the last 20 years, there have been serious de-regulatory
efforts by the government, as a result of industry pressure. Particularly
over the past six or seven years, we’ve actually been loosening
regulations on chemical hazards.
RD: And in some cases, I understand, agencies are laying off their
investigators due to budget cuts. So some regulations aren’t enforced
because of staff shortages.
MS: Exactly. There are no inspectors, no investigators.
Enforcement staffs are being cut across the board in agencies
like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Product Safety
Commission. All of these agencies have seen massive cutbacks in enforcement.
On top of that, new, stringent rules have been imposed on regulatory bodies
requiring a level of scientific certainty—almost conclusiveness--
that’s nearly impossible to obtain.
RD: It sounds like the government’s protecting the interests
of corporations rather than protecting the interests of the people.
MS: I wouldn’t put it quite so simply. But there
is an atmosphere of relaxation of rules, and an imposition of cost-benefit
rules on the regulatory system.
We’d like to blame it on the current administration but it was started
by Al Gore. Remember “Reinventing Government?” That was his
shtick. But the fact is undeniable that those efforts have intensified
and accelerated under the current administration. What we’ve ended
up with is a regulatory structure that’s rewarding short-term economic
interests of major industries in the United States over long-term health
and environmental concerns. I say “short-term” economic interests
because I think, in the long run, we’re not prompting U.S. industry
to innovate, as manufacturers in the EU are doing. We’re losing
our sense of competitiveness; it’s very short-term thinking.
In Europe, it’s also a complicated situation. It’s
not some idyllic place where everyone loves people and hates corporations.
There’s still massive competition, large companies with their own
economic self-interests, and very powerful company lobbies. But they have
found a way to create a higher level at which competition occurs, one
where many of the toxic substances have been removed from their products.
And while there are powerful economic interests in the EU, there seems
to be a higher priority for protecting people from environmental health
hazards than there is in the United States.
The initiatives being taken in the EU aren’t done out of an attachment
to either their own people or to nature. It’s as self-interested
a governing force as ours is, but it operates in a different way. Government
officials have looked at the rising costs of health care for conditions
that occur as a result of exposure to chemicals. And they’ve looked
at it honestly, because in the EU, the government pays for health care--so
they have to pay for all those long-term conditions that happen 10 or
20 years down the line. A cold, clear look at those numbers gives a powerful
incentive to start reducing the causes of illness and, therefore, the
future costs incurred by the government. We have no such incentive system
here. That’s pretty important.
I also think there’s a growing environmental consciousness among
consumers in general, so it behooves companies to start moving away from
toxic chemicals and toward less harmful options. It’s a positive
economic move, and that hasn’t escaped the attention of European
companies. That’s where I think we’re going to start losing
out. Some far-sighted U.S. companies are moving in that direction, as
well as some smaller, more innovative companies.
RD: What has been the response of the majority of companies?
MS: Some of the major American companies continue to
resist regulatory reform in the United States, even though they have accommodated
the reforms in Europe. American cosmetic companies, for example, are doing
what they have to in Europe
to hold on to that market, but every time reform efforts come up here,
they’re the first ones to lobby against them. They have a huge vested
interest in the status quo—obviously a significant financial investment,
as well as an almost psychological
investment. These companies have written many of the regulatory rules
via their lobbying and campaign contributions,
and now someone else is writing the rules. The first reaction has been
immense resistance. American industry’s first response was to flood
Europe with lobbyists to prevent reforms that would prohibit toxic chemicals
in products.
RD: And it seems that Europeans are often characterized as fanatic
or hysterical when they impose sweeping reforms on industry. Are you noticing
that?
MS: Yes, American industries have tried to play these
reforms as neurotic obsession with misplaced concerns over safety, or
as a trade issue to put the Europeans at an advantage over American companies.
These arguments are repeated dozens and dozens of times, and as a way
to undermine the public’s ability to compare what’s happening
in Europe to what could be happening here.
RD: But isn’t it valid to compare what’s happening
in Europe with the U.S.?
MS: Yes, and that’s the whole point of my book—to
look at the comparisons between these two major economies. The EU is now
the world’s largest single market, when it replaced the United States
in 2005 as the world’s largest single market. We have a perfect
opportunity to compare markets of equal sophistication and roughly equal
affluence, to measure their approach to these critical health, safety
and environmental questions.
Here’s what’s happening now: The EU is calling America’s
bluff. That corporate bluff, for years, has been something like this:
“When you environmental activists, legislators, health professionals
demand that we remove these toxic elements from our products, you are
being unrealistic. You’re being Utopian, you’re going to end
up throwing American workers out of their jobs, you’re going to
make us less competitive, and you’re a bunch of neurotics to even
worry about this stuff.” But when we look at the effect of reforms
in the EU—which is a market of equivalent sophistication and affluence—you
see that the argument isn’t true. There is no economic dislocation.
There are no jobs lost. There’s no economic catastrophe. In fact,
I looked for analysts to tell me that there was an economic problem after
reforms in the cosmetic industry or the toy industry, and there has been
no such effect. In fact, the opposite has happened. Many of these companies
are thriving, and are now presenting a competitive challenge to American
companies.
