Our Body Burden:
Twenty first century living shows some interesting developments – have we been too creative and are about to pay the price for being so? Has our temporary applications taken permanent abode within us, thus changing who we are? Time will tell, but the results at present are cautioning us to take note and take real care. The answer lies not in purging ourselves with the unwanted but more so, with purging our heads from the imbalanced smartness that we appear to demonstrate.
We walk into a supermarket and avail ourselves of many a product which contains a multitude of chemicals, to realize some specific property. Sometimes, we gladly embrace bottles filled with chemicals because the aroma of the spray is quite pleasing and titillate our senses, and perhaps, those who are around as well. Instead of getting rid of a negative smell we tend to mask the negative with a product purchased to give an acceptable perception.
Higher quality
With some analysis we may find that we actually spend more on these products than on our food. While the chemicals that we have introduced, synthesized and produced, in large numbers have resulted in some extensions to our average life span, yielded a higher quality of life, there are indications that some of these developments may actually turn out to be not too wholesome, after all.
Today, we speak of having introduced more than one million chemicals and most are finding their way into commercial operations, services and products. Everyday, many come across a wonder chemical. Check the price of a high end perfume and one would understand the power of a chemical ingredient in turning both, heads and commerce, around.
The introduction of these new chemicals as constituents to our bodies and their permanent resident status stemming from fat solubility means, we are modified! Today, I am more than what I am, because I appear to harbor about seven hundred foreign chemicals and related residues, which are termed as our chemical body burden. It does not matter where I come from or where I live because this burden appears to be ubiquitous. This value appears to be true even for those from the remote corners of the world.
The term ‘body burden’ refers to the total amount of chemicals present in the human body at a given point in time. Sometimes, it is useful to consider the body burden of a specific, single chemical, for example, lead, mercury, PCB (polycholorinated biphenyls) or dioxin.These chemicals that we use tend to leave a more lasting imprint in our bodies and in the environment.
They also move from one place to another and demonstrate preferences in settling down in some preferred locations. Our body fat appears to be one such place.
Such migrations and the ability to accumulate, have today, meant a new born getting exposed to some of our modern miracles even before they have a chance to enter this world – to the developing fetus through the placenta.
Subsequently, they may find that breast milk too is not the most preferred and as important as it is shown to be. The unique importance of breast milk has not changed, it is the contaminants that are being increasingly shown to be present in mother’s milk that concerns the researchers.
Different locations
Due to vigilant groups issues have surfaced and the ability to take action has emerged. However, the current manufacturing scenarios have two types of manufacturers. Those engaged in responsible manufacture. When potential issues come to light, they take proactive steps in implementing findings and stay clear of ‘bad’ ingredients.
They would not mind stopping production or removing ingredients even if there is no immediate substitute available to realize the primary property. Then there are manufacturers who only consider the specific property and would continue to use the chemicals in spite of new evidence. With the same product manufactured in two different locations the ‘rogue’ production actually puts the user in danger.
Another serious aspect is that these sub standard products do appear with a lower price tag which makes purchasing a complex issue. This we experience daily, when we say that products from one country is cheaper than in another; and witness many a purchasing decision going the way of the cheaper option in the absence of strict quality criteria. When chemicals are ingredients of a complex product one may have to go into depth with detailed criteria, in order to ensure consumer protection.
It is interesting to note how a company, through normal monitoring mechanism but with positive corporate commitment, identified and took steps in respect of a particular group of chemicals, even though at the time they were an excellent revenue generator.
The story as reported in the US press and by Gregory Unruh in Earth Inc. is as follows: It was in 1997, that 3M made a surprising discovery during a routine check of factory workers’ blood. As expected, the blood of all the 3M employees had small quantities of the chemical perfluoro octane sulfonate (PFOS) – a key input used in the production of 3M’s renowned stain-resistant spray Scotchgard. The problem was with the control samples taken from non employees.
Since the people in the control group had never been in the plant or exposed to the production process, their blood should have been ‘clean’. It wasn’t. Detectable concentrations of PFOS turned up in all of them. Hoping there was some mistake; 3M’s medical director got samples from six hundred Red Cross donors and tested them. There was PFOS in all of these samples too.
He then obtained samples from Europe, comfortably far away from the 3M facility. They all tested positive. It seemed that everyone in the world was contaminated with 3M’s product. And not just people. Polar bears in the Arctic, birds in Japan – just about everywhere anyone looked they found 3M’s PFOS. Credit should indeed go to those who took great pains and efforts to pursue an odd finding to the identification of a global problem of persistence of synthetic chemicals.
To its credit 3M voluntarily shut down its PFOS plant, a business that had been profitable for over fifty years. 3M demonstrated thus the answer to my question. How many would behave in this manner is a key question, when thinking about responsible corporate behaviour.
We are yet not fully aware of the consequences of the chemical body burden and the concentration at which point they would actually cause an adverse effect. However, we cannot wait to determine the value before taking action, either.
That is why chemicals such as PFOS which raised much interest and subsequently concern, at 3M are subjected to international protocols – Stockholm Convention – today. At present, a study has been completed and an action plan developed in Sri Lanka after preparing a national inventory of these chemicals. We have observed many deficiencies in our system in the process which demands corrective action.
PCB is one chemical in the list of banned chemicals under the Stockholm Convention. PCB at one stage was quite a useful chemical being used in many critical applications. PCB was used in coolant system of capacitors, transformers and electric motors.
Contaminated fish
In USA, a major user of PCB, General Electric (GE) had released between 500,000 lbs and 1,500,000 lbs of Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) into the Hudson River during their production operations, and subsequently, this became a major environmental issue. GE facilities along the river apparently had released the waste chemicals over a 30 year period.
PCBs are now known to be responsible for a range of health issues from lower IQ, neurological disorders to cancer. PCB can enter the body from eating contaminated fish, inhaling the volatilized chemical, drinking contaminated water and absorption through the skin. PCB contamination is considered especially dangerous for pregnant and lactating women.
In a recent study published by the Simon Fraser University of Canada, they demonstrated that in a sample of children who studied in the United States, they had identified the presence of PCB in all of them – i.e. 100% presence which is not at all a positive find.
Superior properties
Thus, 21st century living is quite complex. While we go on in search of quality, comforts and convenience and superior properties, we have to understand the short, medium and long term risks that may be emerging.
This calls for parallel work from both, the manufacturers and regulators.
The responsibility on the manufacturer is not to use an ingredient when the body of knowledge indicates warning signals, and not to act with bias towards superior properties claiming incompleteness of knowledge. Chemicals such as DDT, once greeted with Nobel Prizes, are today, similarly subjected to international protocols.
Today we say, when we walk about we may be giving shelter to around 700 foreign chemicals within our body. We inhale, swallow them or absorb them through our skin.
These three routes are prone to abuse and we at times have very little control.
This knowledge has come through detailed experimentation of some dedicated researchers and through techniques developed by another set of dedicated researchers.
Yet, within our national boundaries our ability in testing our own unique body burden is difficult due to the limited availability of testing facilities.
This implies our inability in differentiating quality products vs ‘rogue’ products that may be entering our markets based on ‘cost effective’ considerations which usually dominate the decision making process.
There is a need to develop internal monitoring capability along with relevant human resource developments. Otherwise, even for simple monitoring we have to reach out to external bodies at a great expense.
A couple of analysis points do not tell the whole story. It is not possible to seek greater quality of life without an investment in instruments and implementation of systems, such as, the Global Harmonized Code that enable sustenance of our progress with due care. Responsible use of chemicals is the way forward if we are to avoid becoming walking chemical repositories. 