The list of known human carcinogens is actually quite short.
One of those is alcohol.
Over reaction to small amounts does not accomplish much.
4 Likes
That is wrong in some important ways. Let me demonstrate. In the late 1980s I took an environmental econ class. The discussion on OSHIA and EPA testing turned to the budgets for doing the testing. They were sorely lacking. That meant most chemicals had not been tested properly for what at the time was a roughly 65 year requirement. It meant in 1990 there were around 2500 tested chemicals and over 250k known chemicals. Plus many chemicals were being routinely discovered for industrial purposes.
The other factor that is even worse. We are in a bath of chemicals mostly untested. The bath of chemicals result being far worse than the singular chemical if tested.
If you were to come in here and be ABLE to say there has been adequate testing I would listen carefully. But that is not true at all today. It is an “if”.
The Tosca law requiring testing of new chemicals goes back to about 1975. Since then all new materials have required testing. They now require more testing now than originally. That new materials are not tested is absolutely false.
EPA has called for more testing of some of the most used chemicals from the old list. Those tests are going on now, but it will take a while due to budget limits.
When TOSCA first came in chemicals that had been sold for years with no known history of problems were grandfathered. To do otherwise would shut down the economy. Those that cause trouble do get tested more. One found that way is vinyl chloride monomer.
Traditionally companies run basic toxicity tests for new chemicals before they are made. To do otherwise is foolishness. It is likely that those old materials were tested.
I have a book, Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances from EPA from the beginning. It is the size of a phone book and is probably on line these days. Lots of materials have been tested with data catalogued.
The debate is about what additional testing should be required. The Ames test is routinely used to test for carcinogen potential. That is now standard testing.
Whatever tests are run someone somewhere always asks for more testing. The discussion is endless.
Excuse me but testing very briefly is testing.
The chemicals that need the most testing are for medical purposes. You know well that the pharma companies do minimal testing and drugs are commonly pulled lacking efficacy or having serious side effects. People are directly harmed in the process.
You should know that testing one chemical at a time is not very meaningful. We live in a chemical bath that presents many problems.
You also know the requirements for testing chemicals were written by industrial groups. It is not an honest process.
I seriously doubt you are naive. More testing can be several brief tests. The older rules if anything laid out a longer duration.
The entire problem are the monies budgeted for testing. Clearly very limited amounts of money for the job.
Again you can not judge one chemical to see if it is a carcinogen. Chemicals in groups are changing our DNA daily.
Yes our economy would shut down overnight if we knew what was what. I am not saying the way out of our mess will happen overnight.
Combinations of chemicals. Unfortunately that is totally impractical and we are left to fend for ourselves in reality. The cries to deregulate harm people very badly.
The motive for asking for more testing is very caring. There are a lot of human lives at stake and deaths are happening.
That is simply not true. You should go back to that course you took and ask for a refund.
The Pure Food and Drug Act creating the FDA and requiring labelling and preventing adulteration of foods was passed in about 1907 (after publication of The Jungle). The law requiring effectiveness and thorough testing of drugs was passed in about 1937. That was after a toxic chemical, diethylene glycol, was used in a sulfa drug and caused multiple deaths.
Surely you are aware of all the delays it took FDA to approve the Covid vaccines. And you must be aware of the requests for volunteers to participate in on going tests of new vaccines such as RSV vaccine. That is after extensive testing to establish toxicity. This takes years before they have enough data to get FDA to approve.
They do monitor for unanticipated effects. That sometimes causes FDA to limit uses of drugs or even to withdraw approvals. It does happen occasionally. But not often. Most recent is the discovery of nitrosamines (one of the few known human carcinogen) in some batches of medicine. It probably came from a contaminated solvent. They did catch it.
1 Like
There are indeed matrix effects where material are more toxic or even more effective in the presence of other materials. It is known that carbon tetrachloride used for years in spot removers is more toxic if you are hung over from drinking alcohol. We know that drinking and sedatives can be toxic.
Testing every possible combination is difficult. But that is why medications go through multiple rounds of trials before they are approved. To spot possible interactions.
Testing required is a matter of law in the case of TOSCA. Congress passes the law, EPA proposes requirements and test methods, the rules get published and discussed, finally accepted. The test methods are often developed by industry and must be shown to be effective before approval. No EPA or FDA does not develop test methods. They mostly review paperwork submitted by others. Sometimes by academics supported by govt grants.
In the court of public opinion or in media special interests can do all sorts of things to divert attention from their product or industry, or to influence pending acts of Congress. But once its law, its very scientific. Methods must be shown to be effective so data can be trusted.
I come from a medical family with a lot of doctors as friends of the family. They would not laugh at all at what you are saying. They’d get hot under the collar. Have you ever treated a patient and seen the results? Do you have any direct responsibility for other people’s lives?
Pfizer’s vaccine was signed off in record time. You have no idea what is what. The substitute for testing in the vax’s case was the sheer number of people who were vaccinated. It was done headlong backwards.
That is the rule not the exception.
One chemical at a time. Ignoring what all chemicals in larger groups hitting the body do to the DNA all day long. The data is next to meaningless one chemical at a time.
OK, so no method of testing is thorough enough to meet your requirements.
Are you proposing that all medications be banned until all possible combinations are tested?
Are you proposing that all chemicals be banned until all possible combinations are tested?
Somehow I think a more practical approach benefits society.
Correct
No I was not talking medications in that comment. Although in fairness both topics are being discussed. You have now twice confused when I am discussing pharma where I have doctors peeved off at the drug companies and my classwork.
No I am not saying all chemicals be banned. Not that simple. One place it starts is with Whole Foods. They ban 200 chemicals and substances. The company goes to the farmers first before sourcing food. But in their stores there are toxic chemicals for cleaning. Farming is key in this.
I am proposing that budgets be developed along with datamining to exam causes of DNA changes beyond sunshine radiation and into chemicals toxic or not in our environment.
More importantly we have entire industry niches for silly products we do not need that we could outlaw. Instead of outlawing ONLY a few select chemicals there are products we should not have. Just the amount of plastic flowing could be cut down by outlawing many products ie plastic toys, many plastic parts, plastic bags that are not bio degradable and other plastics.
We could and I believe we will spend more on R&D.
I am not saying shutdown the US economy.
But do not cry me a river if a guy killing his neighbors is shutdown.