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.