You are probably aware of some major campaigns to get rid of common chemicals that have been linked to negative effects on children (and to a lesser extent, adults). California banned BPA, then the rest of the US followed. California is moving to ban excessive fire retardant coatings, and the rest of the US will follow (why this pattern? California is a big enough market that if they set a regulation, it’s cheapest to do it for everyone).
But despite these high-profile campaigns and an increasingly mainstream group of people clamoring for all natural products, there are actually more chemicals out there impacting neuro-activity then ever.
While Europe regulates and bans chemicals that studies link to negative brain changes, the US and Canada don’t. In the US, individual states can regulate—but few do (or trends change, as with flame retardants once being a good thing and now being bad).
While we have hundreds of chemicals linked to autism, cerebral palsy, dyslexia, and ADD, there are tens of thousands more with who knows what effects on us.
Researchers from Harvard and Mt Sinai propose companies be held accountable for chemicals they introduce—most become household staples, present in your blood and urine—making them even more common than pharmaceuticals which are (at least in theory if not always in practice) held to a higher standard. We can hope that the cost of testing for safety/toxicity is enough to just deter their use altogether.
Since you can’t avoid the chemicals (unless you’ve made all your own furniture, including weaving the fabric or tanning the leather) you can always detox. Humic and Fulvic acid (paired with zeolite) are one tool in your kit.
Do you think chemicals should be regulated more tightly?
