om either a single exposure or multiple exposures in a short span of time.
Adverse effects must occur within two weeks of the test to be considered acute toxicity. However, according to the USPCP, this measurement does not
show the long-term toxic effects of a single chemical or compound
Asbestos is a prime example of how measuring LD50 can be misleading in regards to a chemical’s toxicity. Asbestos does not have an LD50 because it is not
acutely toxic. It is not a poison in the traditional sense. It is “technically possible” to eat asbestos and not be poisoned. However, a small amount of
asbestos ingested into the lungs can result in asbestosis, lung cancer or mesothelioma all of which are fatal diseases.
Although there were studies as early as the 1920’s and 30’s linking asbestos to health problems, it was considered safe under the LD50 criteria. The
asbestos industry and government regulators denied any dangers for decades. Such irresponsible neglect and misrepresentation resulted in thousands of
unnecessary and cruel deaths worldwide with more to come, due to its 20-50 year latency for asbestos-related diseases.
Testing for low or no VOCs excludes exempt VOCs
A similar case can be argued for the study of low or no volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as solvents and formaldehyde in paint and adhesives. Low levels or zero VOCs does not make a product safe, because many products contain numerous toxic chemicals that have been de-regulated.
As a result of OSHA requirements, many manufacturers have reduced or eliminated the amount of VOCs in their ingredients. While this has helped reduce the
amount of smog and thereby improved the ozone layer of our atmosphere, manufacturers often substitute exempt VOC chemicals such as acetone or ammonia, both of which are hazardous to humans, to take their place. They are exempt simply because they do not contribute to
the production of smog.
Hundreds of exempt VOCs are used throughout the industry and continue to cause complaints of headache, irritability, nausea and other physical symptoms.
Our regulating authorities have created a VOC standard that purposefully ignores certain chemicals, and therefore, does not guarantee human safety. More on
this in part 2.
Testing excludes new born children and pregnant women
Most of the chemical research done on humans does not take into account the special needs of children, the elderly, those with chemical sensitivities or
pregnant women. It is well known, that all of the above are highly vulnerable to the slightest amount of chemicals and pesticides. Most of the testing
protocols for chemicals, however, are based on mature animals and ignore the specific physiological differences between mature animals and the fetus,
newborns, and developing young, including humans.
This is critically important, according to the USPCP, because
“approximately 40 chemicals classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as known, probable, or possible human carcinogens, are
used in EPA-registered pesticides now on the market.”
What is wrong with this picture?
The USPCP pointed out that these chemical contaminants are being passed on to the next generation, both prenatally and during breastfeeding. Numerous
environmental contaminants can cross the placental barrier; to a disturbing extent, babies are born ‘pre-polluted.’ According to a 2009 study by the
Environmental Working Group (EWG), up to 232 chemicals were found in the placental cord blood of newborns in the US. Many of these
chemicals such as mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls, are known to harm brain development and the nervous system.
The USPCP report further states that “Cancer incidence in U.S. children under 20 years of age has increased…Leukemia rates are consistently elevated among
children who grow up on farms, among children whose parents used pesticides in the home or garden…” Again, the assumption that low levels of chemicals will
cause no health issues is clearly unfounded. The amount of peer-reviewed published papers showing a wide range of problems caused by pestici