Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It has been scientifically proven that chemical used to manufacture fragrances in a multitude of products used in the home and placed on our bodies are extremely toxic and can cause serious physical (and emotional) issues.
However, no matter how much this information is passed along, generally people will not take heed because all they hear and see are the snake oil commercials.
And if something has a nice fragrance, How could it be harmful?
Three links to essentially the same source is probably at least one too many.
It's also a bit of a too-little, too-late warning, because the substance has been banned and is found in only a few remaining products, after years of widespread use (and thus a case of 'the damage is done' for many people who will be affected). It's like those who panicked over thimerosal long after it had been removed from US vaccines.
It also has nothing to do with fragrance or smell, but is a preservative, like most substances that turn out to have unwanted properties.
There are tens of thousands of such substances used in consumer products. A number of them considered GRAS are going to come up with problems when more focused or long-term testing is done. How many products are you going to abandon, or go to ineffective substitutes for, because of such low odds of harm?
Well, generally we don't know how low are the odds with GRAS.
FDA is approving just about anything to later on recall lots of the stuff. And less than 2% of imports are actually tested for safety.
It seems that the approval process is somewhat reversed: first approve then test and recall, because who really cares for the US citizens when a buck is to make...
FYI:
Most of the chemicals added to food and beverages — from cheese to chips to chicken soup — are never reviewed by the FDA before those products are sold in grocery stores. The FDA may not have even heard of some chemicals added to foods, much less reviewed them for safety. In fact, the FDA may never have even heard of an estimated 1,000 or more chemicals that have been added to foods and beverages...
The problem is, generally recognized as safe is an oxymoron. Under the GRAS process, ingredients can bypass FDA safety reviews, and the manufacturers themselves can determine a substance is safe without ever informing the FDA that they are using it in food.
Doesn't that reminds you on the FAA safety approval for Boeing?
Well, generally we don't know how low are the odds with GRAS.
The point of GRAS is, or was, to bypass endless testing and restriction on substances long in use without any conspicuous incidence of problems. As testing advances, more and more subtle and long-term effects such as this are going to show up.
At what point do you stop using a substance with positive benefits because it may have very long-term negative effects for some subset of users? (Salt, anyone?) Nearly every substance that is approved or GRAS has negative qualities for some. (Diabetes, anyone? PKU, anyone?)
I'm not arguing for or against this particular compound, but consider that there are powerful long-term, lifetime counters to osteoporosis. A woman who is conscious of the problem, especially if it runs in her family, and works to prevent its onset is not likely to be affected by this trivial factor over many others.
The substance has been banned, and continued exposure from a few legacy or insufficiently screened products is not likely to add to health risks. What further is it that should be done, here?
And running to other products, especially to the stuff on 'health food' shelves that contain many "natural" and "organic" and "the Chinese have used it for millennia" ingredients that quite often turn out - again, on this subtle and long-term examination, often the first the substance has ever had in a controlled setting - to have negative effects... not really a win.
Quote:
Doesn't that reminds you on the FAA safety approval for Boeing?
Boeing has built hundreds of thousands of aircraft with a better safety record than any of their competitors. Comparing recent woes with one, and perhaps two models is not equivalent to the endless risks of different levels we each take with every bite and breath.
It's all about risk assessment. Everything in life is a risk; choose which risks are worth worrying about. A substance with slight effects on a condition that can be greatly controlled with better diet and so forth as a lifetime effort is not something worth running in circles about, especially as it was removed from the main run of products before this report was announced.
It's also a bit of a too-little, too-late warning, because the substance has been banned and is found in only a few remaining products, after years of widespread use (and thus a case of 'the damage is done' for many people who will be affected).
It's still widely used in Toothpaste and hasn't been banned for use there (yet). The most popular toothpaste product being Colgate Total.
The point of GRAS is, or was, to bypass endless testing and restriction on substances long in use without any conspicuous incidence of problems. As testing advances, more and more subtle and long-term effects such as this are going to show up.
At what point do you stop using a substance with positive benefits because it may have very long-term negative effects for some subset of users?
The point is that I would like it to be tested by independent agency (not the producer) and tell me possible side effects or at least ingredients, so I can make INFORMED choice to use it or not.
Right now, everyone can sell just about everything, toxic or not, and FDA will approve just because the producer said so.
Many of those now known substances are banned everywhere else in the world, even the Third World, but FDA refuses to admit that those substances are harmful.
Good example: medications coated with Red 40. Medications and vitamins using other toxic food dyes, many of them for children. Seriously??
Well, generally we don't know how low are the odds with GRAS.
FDA is approving just about anything to later on recall lots of the stuff. And less than 2% of imports are actually tested for safety.
It seems that the approval process is somewhat reversed: first approve then test and recall, because who really cares for the US citizens when a buck is to make...
FYI:
Most of the chemicals added to food and beverages — from cheese to chips to chicken soup — are never reviewed by the FDA before those products are sold in grocery stores. The FDA may not have even heard of some chemicals added to foods, much less reviewed them for safety. In fact, the FDA may never have even heard of an estimated 1,000 or more chemicals that have been added to foods and beverages...
The problem is, generally recognized as safe is an oxymoron. Under the GRAS process, ingredients can bypass FDA safety reviews, and the manufacturers themselves can determine a substance is safe without ever informing the FDA that they are using it in food.
Doesn't that reminds you on the FAA safety approval for Boeing?
! Not many people have read enough to understand what you just explained. Well done. Very impressive.
I have to think that something more is going on with triclosan. This is at least the third warning and call for it to be banned. One of the warnings was a general one about antibacterials, claiming that they made for stronger bacteria. That one had the smell of BS, as the chlorine component is triclosan is the active bactericide and chlorine is COMMONLY used in food service (even required) as a sanitizing agent. The second claim I found was that it was an endocrine disruptor that made girls reach puberty early - also a claim that smelled suspicious, given that the components in chicken feed are far more likely to pass through and do that. This third claim to come to my attention seems also problematic. Bone loss is not an instantaneous process and the methodology of the study is suspect.
Somebody, somewhere, has a vendetta against triclosan. It may be valid, it may not be and be a marketing war or something else. At his point, my response is that I smell something rotten in Denmark and that the whole truth is not yet out there.
I'm not surprised. with the higher rates of other things like allergies and intolerances, men losing hair younger and younger, impotence, etc. I believe it has to do with what we are eating and consuming.
All these chemicals put in our food and other body products.
I fear for our pets too. Shame.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
