well, so interesting how a topic just comes and knocks you upside the head every once and a while, hey? lately seems to be the subject of body burden … which is essentially discussions around all the toxic chemicals we all have in our blood.
the presence of toxic chemicals, it turns out, is so widespread that even polar bears have this stuff in their blood … even plants, animals, soil and air from the most remote parts of the world have this stuff kicking around in their insides! hmm … so nice to think about, n’est-ce pas?!
of course, this isn’t necessarily news to me, and i have read articles in the past touching on this sort of ubiquitous contamination … but it has only been recently that it has jumped back into the foreground for me.
for one thing — a friend of mine has been doing some really interesting work in this area. she has been studying how the media frames discussions around this sort of widespread pollution. her findings suggest that instead of encouraging us to push government and industry to better regulate the types of chemicals they use (which is the job of government, and the responsibility of industry afterall … to work to ensure that what we put on our and in our bodies isn’t killing us), the media simply suggests we take personal responsibility, and buy safer products. norah concludes this isn’t a realistic option when the contamination is everywhere, and the only way to truly combat it is through policy changes, and better regulation and monitoring.
norah argues, for example, what good is eating organics if the soil and water holding that organic food is full of (sometimes hundreds of) other toxic chemicals?
very interesting, and important questions.
then, in the october 2007 issue of harper’s, there is an article by mark schapiro dealing with just this topic, and how the european union is dealing with it. the short story is: the us government has repeatedly done everything in its power to ensure no regulations complicate the life of chemical manufacturers (regardless of human health concerns) … the european union, however, has just passed an new regulatory framework called ‘reach’ that will make chemical manufacturers go back and prove that the chemicals they have been using for years pose no threat.
in north america, it is up to the individual to prove that a chemical causes cancer, or some other sickness, in order for the chemical to be called into question. now, in europe, the requirements are reversed — it is now mandatory for all chemical manufacturers to prove their chemicals don’t harm people.
what this means is that european citizens will now be buying safer products than those in north america … although, american companies wanting to sell to the european union (a huge market) will have to comply with these new european standards. this in turn might mean that some north americans will have access to safer products, as well — but not thanks to our governments, only thanks to the governments of europe.
the governments in canada in the united states are too concerned with the profit margins of large corporations to worry about the health of their citizens. (which of course is dumb, since the incredible cost to the health system and worker productivity alone (not to mention quality of life and well-being) should encourage our governments to worry about us more often than they do).
anyway, all this to say … i think norah (my friend studying body burden) is right: we need to remember that we can’t solve the biggest global issues (like climate change and pollution) through only our personal buying habits … we can use this, but we also need to come together and collectively demand that our governments work in our best interest.
afterall, the main reason our governments work in the best interest of corporations instead of our best interest has largely to do with the fact that these corporations spend a lot of time, money and effort in encouraging the government to do so.
it is time we stand up and make ourselves heard.
c.
