Why do we use toxic products?

The other day, a friend of mine sent me an article about thieves who had stolen metal from a contaminated power plant and sold it to a scrap metal yard.  The metal from the plant contains a carcinogenic chemical, and the thieves were hosed down after their arrest.  An employee who had his clothes taken from him and was sent home in what was essentially a hazmat suit was worried about bringing home the toxins to his three young children.

The irony, of course, is that the vast majority of the products we regularly interact with contain carcinogens, as well.  The plastic in the computer I am typing on and possible flame retardant in the clothes I am wearing are off-gassing harmful chemicals into the air I am breathing.  And, of course, the bus I am riding on is spewing plenty of nasty chemicals out of its tailpipe.

So, why are we so careful in the one instance and yet so careless in the other?  My guess is that in this particular case, the chemical from the power plant might have a strong immediate effect.  On the other hand, off-gassing toxins from ordinary household items won’t kill you right away; they’ll build up in your system over many years and potentially cause cancer and other ill effects.  In short, they’re easier to ignore.

When a company makes a defective product, consumers will often file a lawsuit against the company.  However, if someone gets cancer from the accumulated effects of a lifetime of toxic products, they can’t say that any single company caused it.  Thus, they wouldn’t win the case, and the companies aren’t forced to change.

But what about government regulations?  This one puzzles me.  There are consumer safety lobbying groups, but from the results (or lack thereof) I infer that this issue isn’t a priority of theirs.  Why?

I think that people resist believing that commonly used goods contain (and off-gas) so many harmful chemicals.  This is surprising, considering how many harmful production practices we’ve caught and stopped over the years – such as muckrakers’ reports of early-20^th-century meat-packing plants.  But I think people believe we have now reached an age where such things are behind us.  People look back at history and marvel at the actions of those in the past, and often believe that they took those actions because they were in the past.  That is to say, I think that many people believe that we are in an era not only of greater technoscientific knowledge, but also of greater morality.  I theorize that this may be one of the reasons why people are unwilling to believe that companies could still be manufacturing toxic products.

Also, I think it’s difficult to believe that it is so pervasive.  Even though I know about this both from our textbook and, in more depth, from the book Cradle to Cradle, it’s still difficult to internalize.  It feels as though, if this is as pervasive a problem as it’s presented as, someone would have done something about it.  Or, at least, more people would be talking about it.  But I think that one major thing is that most people are not aware of it.  People have heard of lead and asbestos, but how many people have heard of BPA, phthalates, or parabens?  Not many.

In the text, Professor Woodhouse implies that it is mostly legacy thinking that causes the problem of toxic products – what he terms Brown Chemistry.  However, I think it is more about lack of awareness than anything else.  What can be done about this?  PSA campaigns, perhaps?  Or we can find out how lead and asbestos were brought to people’s attention, and copy those methods.  Social media and traditional media (such as TV) could also be ways to make people more aware.

The other problem, I think, is that because the problem is pervasive, it seems unsolvable, at least by someone whose career does not involve solving these problems.  The average person can’t simply stop buying all conventionally made products and switch over to solely environmentally friendly and healthy products, at least without great effort and intention.  When someone walks into the stores they normally shop at, they find conventional products.  Given this, I think people find it easier to ignore the problem than to acknowledge and think about the fact that they and their loved ones are ingesting toxic chemicals on a daily basis.  It’s too stressful a thing to think about, and people have enough on their minds.  Similarly, I think many people know by know about the horrid working conditions of the people in China and other places who create iPhones and other toys of the developed world, but people are at a loss as to what to actually do about it, and so they block it out.

If more companies created environmentally friendly and non-toxic products, advertised them and made them more available, I think people would buy them, especially if they were informed of the dangers of conventional products.  Some companies are already doing this, such as Ecovative Design, a company started by RPI alumni that grows packaging from mushrooms.  Hopefully we will see more of this in the future.  Also, if there were a list of environmentally friendly and healthy brands and products, or perhaps a website where people could search in different categories, it would make it easier.  In addition, public policy needs to change and regulations need to be put in place, perhaps by raising awareness among consumer advocates and by instituting a system by which companies can benefit from creating healthy products.  I am interested to read what Professor Woodhouse’s suggestions are for fixing this problem.