Okay, Chelsea, it's been a while since we talked about plastics, I'm sure, having basically
talked about them a lot.
But, you know.
This article came on January 8th of 2025, it's on The Guardian, written by Kerry Gillam.
Article title, Health Experts Rally for Call to Arms to Protect Children from Toxic Chemicals.
Children are suffering and dying from diseases that emerging scientific research has linked
to chemical exposures.
Children's that require urgent revamping of laws around the world, according to a new
paper published on Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Authored by more than 20 leading public health researchers, including one from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and another from the United Nations, the paper lays out, quote, a large
body of evidence, end quote, linking multiple childhood diseases to synthetic chemicals
and recommended a series of aggressive actions of tribe to better protect children.
The paper is a call to arms to forge an actual commitment to the health of our children,
said Linda Bernbaum, former director of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health,
Science and Co-author of the paper.
In conjunction with the release of the paper, some of the study authors are helping launch
an institute for preventative health to support the recommendations outlined in the paper
to help fund implementation of reforms.
A key player in launching the institute is Anne Robertson, vice president of Robertson
Stevens Wealth Management and a member of the family that built RJ Reynolds Tobacco.
Interesting.
That is interesting.
The paper points to data showing global inventories of roughly 350,000 synthetic chemical mixtures
and plastics, most of which are derived from fossil fuels.
Production has expanded 50 folds in 9050 and is currently increasing by about 3% a year,
projected to triple by 2050, the paper states.
Meanwhile, non-communicable diseases, including many that research shows can be caused by
synthetic chemicals, are rising in children and have become the principal cause of death
and illness for children.
The author is right.
Despite the connections, which the authors say, quote, continued to be discovered with
distressing frequency, end quote, there are very few restrictions on such chemicals and
no post-market surveillance for longer term adverse health effects.
Quote, the evidence is so overwhelming and the effects of manufactured chemicals are
so disruptive for children that inaction is no longer an option.
End quote, said Danielle Mandrioli, a co-author of the paper and director of the César Maltoni
Cancer Research Center at the Remazzini Institute in Italy, quote, our article highlights the
necessity for a paradigm shift in chemical testing and regulations to safeguard children's
health.
End quote, such a shift would require changes in laws, restructuring of the chemical industry
and redirection of financial investments similar to what has been undertaken with efforts to
transition to clean energy, the paper states.
Yeah, and that's going so well.
The paper identifies several disturbing data points for trend lines over the last 50 years.
They include the incidence of childhood cancers up 35%.
Male reproductive birth defects have doubled in frequency and neurodevelopmental disorders
are affecting one in six children.
The spectrum disorder is diagnosed in one in 36 children.
Pediatric asthma has tripled in prevalence and pediatric obesity prevalence has nearly
quadrupled, driving a quote, sharp increase in type two diabetes among children and adolescents.
End quote, quote, children's health has been slipping away as a priority focus.
End quote, said Tracy Woodruff, a co-author of the paper and director of the University
of California, San Francisco's program on reproductive health and the environment.
Quote, we've slowly just been neglecting this, the clinical and public health community
and the government has failed them.
End quote, the author site research documenting how, quote, even brief low level exposures
to toxic chemicals during early vulnerable periods.
End quote, in a child's development can cause disease and disability.
Prenatal exposure are particularly hazardous for paper states.
Quote, diseases caused by toxic chemical exposures in childhood can lead to massive economic losses,
including health care expenditures and productivity losses resulting from the reduced cognitive
function, physical disabilities and premature death.
The chemical industry largely externalizes these costs and poses them on the government's
and taxpayers.
End quote, the paper notes.
The paper takes issue with the US Toxic Substances Control Act of 1977 and amendments arguing
that even though the law was enacted to protect public health from, quote, unreasonable risk.
End quote, posed by chemicals, it does not provide the environmental protection agency
with the authorities needed to actually meet that commitment.
Instead the manner in which the law is implemented assumes that all manufactured chemicals are
harmless and beneficial and burdens government regulators with identifying and assessing the
chemicals.
Quote, hazards that have been recognized have typically been ignored or downplayed and the
responsible chemicals allowed to remain in use with no or limited restrictions.
In nearly 50 years since the TSCA's passage, only a handful of chemicals have been banned
or restricted in US markets.
End quote, the paper states.
Chemical oversight is more rigorous in the European Union, the paper says, but still
fails to provide adequate protection, relying heavily on testing data provided by the chemical
industry and providing multiple exemptions, the paper argues.
The authors of the paper prescribed a new global precautionary approach that would only
allow chemical products on the market if they manufacturers could establish through independent
testing that the chemicals are not toxic at anticipated exposure levels.
Quote, the core of our recommendation is that chemicals should be tested before they come
to market.
They should not be presumed to be innocent only to be found to be harmful years and
decades later.
End quote, said Phil Landrigan, a co-author who directs the program for global public
health and the common good at Boston College.
Quote, each and every chemical should be tested before they come to market.
End quote.
Additionally, companies would be required to conduct post-marketing surveillance to look
for long-term adverse effects for their products.
That could include biomonitoring of the most prevalent chemical exposures to the general
population, Mandrioli said.
Disease registries would play another fundamental role, he said, but those approaches should
be integrated with toxicological studies that can anticipate and rapidly predict effects
that might have very long latencies in humans such as cancer.
Clusters of populations with increased cancer incidences, particularly when they are children,
should trigger immediate preventative actions, he said.
Key to it all would be a legally binding global chemicals treaty that would fall under the
auspices of the United Nations and would require a quote, permanent independent science policy
body to provide expert guidance, end quote the paper suggests.
Paper recommends chemical companies and consumer product companies be required to disclose
information about the potential risks of the chemicals in use and report on inventory
needs of chemicals of quote, high concern, end quote.
Quote, pollution by synthetic chemicals in plastics is a major planetary challenge that
is worsening rapidly.
Continued unchecked increases in production of fossil carbon-based chemical endangers
the world's children and threatens humanity's capacity for reproduction.
Inaction on chemicals is no longer an option, end quote the paper states.
Landrigan said he knew the effort faces an uphill battle and could be particularly challenging
given the incoming Trump administration which is widely expected to favor deregulation
policies.
Quote, this is a tough subject, it's an elephant in the room, he said, but it's what needs
to be done, end quote.
Oh what a note to leave that on.
Chelsea what do you think of that?
That's exactly what I was thinking, what about the corporations?
I know.
What about them?
How are they going to make their money?
They're going to make their money.
I always, as a society we generally, I'm sure we brought this up several times on the podcast,
we privatized the profits and then we socialized the actual detriment of the product.
We don't actually expect somebody who makes a lot of money off it to bear the brunt of
fixing the problems.
No, because that affects their bottom line, like we would never want to fuck with that.
And importantly, line needs to go up, that's like the one rule of our entire system.
Oh yeah, it has to.
It must die.
You're going to go up.
I spoke too soon.
We must not die.
We need to still buy their products.
But we need to be willing to die for it.
Yeah, we do.
I think that thumbs it up perfectly.
It's unspoken, but it is definitely something to do.
And I think we can say that that is corporatism, not corporatism.
What's the word that I'm looking for?
Oh, it's late stage capitalism.
Yeah, yeah, that's that.
That's that at its finest.
We're willing to die for it.
Yeah, and this is particularly well timed with the incoming Trump administration, which
I believe will be an office once this episode comes out.
Yeah, I mean, I don't think that we're going to be very far behind them with a conservative
run with Paul.
Yeah.
I'm happy with that.
But I did not know there was it looks like plastic and chemical guideline legislation
in the works behind the scenes, at least at certain levels.
That is great.
I know we've seen it with plastic pollution.
There's groups for that.
That are pushing for regulation.
Yeah, I mean, it would be nice.
But I mean, the corporations are the ones that have all the money for all the lobbying
and all of that to be able to it's not corporations that are pushing for regulation.
Let's be honest.
And there are all the powers, unfortunately.
And you're right.
That was a sad article and they put it in children.
Yeah.
Can you imagine, though, it's like it's such a fundamental, simple answer to the issue
is you have to be able to come before you put your product out to market and say like,
Hey, here's everything that's in it.
None of these show detrimental long term impact on children.
Like I feel like that's a pretty low bar to be able to bring something to market.
And you know what?
That's probably the more expensive option.
Oh, it's way more expensive.
Therefore, that's not the option that they're going with because who gives the fuck.
Yeah.
So yeah, sorry to be cynical this early in the year.
Oh, yeah, you got me fired up here now.
And especially with like RFK Jr. in the Trump administration being in charge of vaccines
now basically, you don't need to look at vaccines for autism.
Like we already know that the study that found autism was connected with vaccines is very
widely panned.
The guy got his medical license taken away because it was so badly done.
I didn't know that.
Oh, yeah.
He basically it was people who.
Yeah, it was basically Melda's.
He consulted with her, but no.
And he went out of romance novels.
Yeah.
Basically, he selected parents for the study who thought the vaccine caused autism in
their children.
What?
Yeah.
That's a stupid story.
Yeah.
And that's how he came to the conclusion the vaccines caused autism.
Okay.
That seems scientific.
Yeah.
Scientific enough to get your license taken away.
Anyhow, like you can find a link in so many things, including plastic, which has escalated
the amount that's in contact with us and all these chemicals.
But he's for deregulation, which is the stupidest thing if you actually care about health.
Yeah, Trump.
Yeah.
RFK Jr. Sorry, not Trump.
They're both anti-regulation, but I was talking about RFK Jr. in that situation.
Yeah.
But I will always say and I will stand on this hill, regulation is generally good.
You might find a few fringe things here or there, but like this is regulation to stop
kids from dying of cancer.
Regulation is, for the most part, pretty good when it comes to most things, I think.
Well, and for the most part, the reason the regulation is there is because somebody died.
Yeah.
Well, you need, you need control of most situations or else you get people running rampant, taking
advantage of something that's not showing outlines of how it needs to be done.
And it's not just with plastic.
Like even regulation when it comes to drugs and stuff like that, it is a good thing.
The food that we eat every day.
Yeah.
Like whenever you hear there's a recall because there was a whole line or something, that
is actually the regulation working and forcing these companies to recall their food because
it could kill somebody.
Fuck those guys.
And just remember, if there's no regulation, then you're putting a company in place, a company
whose first incentive is profit, to dictate whether or not something should be put to
market.
Yeah.
And they will always choose the profitable option.
Why would you?
It's like us, during the fridge.
Yes.
What a way to start our Wednesday.
In green, is that?
And with that, you guys got 48 hours, send us money.
It's the most profitable option for us at the moment.
Anyhow, we'll tell you how much money we get in 48 hours.
OK.