Of course we all know toxins are not poisonous!!!

[Guest guest]

Chemical campaigns 'misleading'

By Rebecca Morelle

Health reporter, BBC News

 

 

 

The WWF wants dangerous chemicals phased out

Leading toxicologists have warned green groups are " misleading " the

public with chemical contamination campaigns.

 

They said they are deliberately and unfairly scaring the public.

 

In particular, they criticised a WWF campaign that has highlighted

the presence of chemicals in blood, food and in babies' umbilical

cords.

 

The scientists said the minute levels detected did not warrant the

group's focus on health dangers, but WWF has denied it was scare-

mongering.

 

The message they are putting across is misleading, and deliberately

so

 

Professor David Coggon

 

 

Q & A: REACH

 

The tests have formed part of WWF's campaign to strengthen proposed

EU legislation, called REACH (Registration, Evaluation and

Authorisation of Chemicals), on the testing and phasing out of

chemicals.

 

They argue the presence of chemicals, such as musks (found in

perfumes), brominated flame retardants, and dioxins (a by-product of

heating processes), in the environment pose a danger to health in

humans and wildlife, and more stringent protective measures are

needed.

 

But while many scientists believe monitoring levels of chemicals and

the phasing out of dangerous ones are vital, as is REACH, they say

WWF and other green groups have been playing on the public's fears to

highlight their campaigns.

 

Dose-response

 

Alistair Hay, professor of environmental toxicology from the

University of Leeds, said: " The presence of these things is a warning

that we are exposed to chemicals in the environment and we have to

try and understand what this means - but it is wrong to frighten

people. "

 

While David Coggon, professor of occupational and environmental

health from Southampton University, added: " The message they are

putting across is misleading, and deliberately so. "

 

According to Dr Andrew Smith, of the Medical Research Council

Toxicology Unit, University of Leicester, it is the amount of a

chemical present that is key when considering toxicity.

 

We are weighing up the difference between alarm and ignorance - we

are not looking to scare-monger

 

Elizabeth Salter Green, WWF

And the researchers said the levels of the chemicals found in some of

the tests were extremely low - measured in parts per billion or parts

per trillion.

 

Although some of the chemicals were dangerous at high doses, they

said, one could not go on to assume that because a trace amount was

detected it posed a danger.

 

Dr Smith said: " Any toxicologist will tell you that dose - the

amount - is the important thing.

 

" I would rather we didn't find these chemicals present, but trying to

ascribe toxicity to them is a different matter. "

 

Professor Coggon agreed: " One of the most important things in

toxicology is to look at how a person is exposed and how much of a

substance they are exposed to.

 

 

The WWF tested for chemicals in food

 

" The fact that you can detect something at all does not imply a

material risk to health. "

 

The researchers said the chemicals were being found in trace amounts

because of advances in detection techniques that could uncover

substances at ever smaller concentrations.

 

The researchers admitted there was uncertainty surrounding the

effects of some of the chemicals, but said just because it couldn't

be confirmed something was 100% safe this did not mean it was 100%

dangerous.

 

Professor Richard Sharpe, an expert in endocrine disrupters from the

Medical Research Council Human Reproductive Sciences Unit, in

Edinburgh, said: " By and large, I think people shouldn't be worried.

Most chemicals will not do any great harm at these very low levels.

You have to put this into perspective. "

 

Chemiphobia

 

Dr John Emsley, a visiting professor at Manchester University, said

the word " chemical " had become a synonym for " toxic " , and that the

public was growing increasingly fearful of contamination, something

he called " chemiphobia " .

 

" I think the public are afraid because it is all about the unseen

danger - it is presented as something malevolent lurking below the

surface. You don't know what it is and you don't know what it does.

It is a risk they do not feel in control of. "

 

 

Elizabeth Salter Green, director of the WWF's toxic campaign,

said: " I think WWF's raison d'etre is to protect biodiversity. We

feel that there are certain drivers such as chemicals undermining

future generations' viability.

 

" We are keen that the core aim of REACH is maintained - to protect

future generations of humans and wildlife while not undermining the

competitiveness of the chemicals industry. "

 

She said she was concerned with possible health risks associated the

lifestyle exposure to different combinations of low-level chemicals,

and pointed to studies which revealed the chemicals were working

together.

 

" We are weighing up the difference between alarm and ignorance - we

are not looking to scare-monger - we are looking to highlight an

issue such that the UK population are aware of exposures and to call

for better regulation. "