Toxics Archives - Environment Matters

The Dark History of a Potent Man-Made Poison

by envtam-admin | Apr 15, 2026 | A Sustainable Future, Featured, Toxics

THE DARK HISTORY OF A POTENT MAN-MADE POISON

By Allan W. Maynard, MSc. and Wayne Dwernychuk, Phd

A group of chemicals classified as dioxins have a dark legacy that includes chemical warfare (Vietnam), an attempted high-profile assassination (Ukraine), the closure of the shellfish industry (Pacific Northwest). Co-author – Dr. Dwernychuk is a world-renowned expert on the impacts of dioxins in the environment.

WHAT IS DIOXIN?

Humans have discovered or created more than fifty million different chemicals here on earth. Over 90,000 chemicals are registered for use in the USA. The EU and Canada, having stricter policies, register about 25,000 chemicals for use. Of the thousands of man-made chemicals, only about 500 have been extensively studied for health and environmental impacts. We are living in a decades long public health experiment.

Dioxins are a group of chemically related compounds that contain carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and chlorine, primarily created by unintentional human activity: industrial smelting, chlorine bleaching of paper pulp, herbicide/pesticide manufacturing, and burning waste.

The dioxin class of chemicals are considered “forever chemicals” because they break down very slowly. They cause severe health issues, including skin lesions, reproductive problems, developmental issues, and cancer. The World Health Organization (WHO) classifies the most toxic of this group 2,3,7,8 – tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin (from now referred to as TCDD), as a known human carcinogen.

The Dark History of a Potent Man-made Poison

Over 80 million liters of defoliants (mostly Agent Orange) were sprayed during the Vietnam War

AGENT ORANGE – CHEMICAL WARFARE
ON AN EPIC SCALE

During the Vietnam War (mainly between 1962 – 1971), the United States military used Agent Orange as part of a large-scale defoliation program known as Operation Ranch Hand. Agent Orange is a mixture of herbicides that include 2,4-D (a commonly used weedkiller used in gardens) and 2,4,5-T. In the manufacturing of 2,4,5-T, the product became contaminated with dioxins – including the highly toxic TCDD. The contamination from the manufacturing process was unknown at the time.

Agent Orange (with its dioxin contamination) was sprayed over forests and farmlands to defoliate for military visibility, and to destroy crops believed to support opposing forces (the Viet Cong). It was applied at up to 20 times the recommend rate for killing plants. While it achieved some military objectives, the long-term consequences were devastating. Millions of Vietnamese civilians and U.S. veterans were exposed, leading to severe health problems including cancers, birth defects, and environmental destruction that persists today. Vietnam claims that the spraying caused over 400,000 deaths. The use of Agent Orange remains one of the most controversial aspects of the war, raising lasting ethical, legal, and humanitarian concerns.

Dr. W. Dwernychuk, then a senior associate with Hatfield Consultants, led a team of Canadian scientists to central Vietnam in the A Luoi Valley, the site of the infamous Hamburger Hill battle. The US established three special forces bases in the valley. Samples of environmental media and food stuffs were collected, with human blood and breast milk to determine the level of dioxin contamination in these materials. A huge volume of evidence was accumulated confirming the environmental and health consequences were a direct outcome of the chemical spraying.

Birth defects were common in areas sprayed with Agent Orange.

Dr. Dwernychuk also provided expert testimony in the US to support Vietnam War veterans. The 1991 Agent Orange Act allowed for over 650,000 vets to receive disability compensation for a host of illnesses (several cancers, Parkinson’s disease, type 2 diabetes, and coronary heart disease) associated with exposure to TCDD.

The ground-breaking work carried out by his firm is summarized in an historical account of the Vietnam War – “THE LONG RECKONING” by George Black and was also covered by CBS News “60 Minutes”. The link to the 60 minutes is given here and it is well worth the time to view. https://youtu.be/gFLdfR7O9xc?t=18 .

A short paper on the subject of ‘hot spots’ in Vietnam is given here: https://www.hatfieldgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/chemosphere-hotspots.pdf

Victor Yushchenko – before and after being poisoned with TCDD

A POLITICAL ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT

In 2004 Ukraine was embroiled in a tense presidential election, the outcome of which was highly consequential. Victor Yushchenko, the pro-west and pro-EU candidate was running against the pro-Russia Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych. In September of 2004, Yushchenko became ill with symptoms including a swollen pancreas severe abdominal pain and severe disfigurement from chloracne (see photo).

Austrian doctors and toxicology experts confirmed his face was affected by chloracne, caused by dioxin poisoning. Laboratory tests confirmed that the politician’s blood contained levels of TCDD 50,000 times above normal, the second highest concentration ever recorded. This deadly form of TCDD is manufactured in very small quantities and is only available as a laboratory reagent. It was obviously obtained in this form and likely administered with food.

Yushchenko claimed his opponents in government orchestrated the poisoning. Some reports, including insights from intelligence sources, suggested the orders for the attack came from Moscow. Despite the near-fatal poisoning, Yushchenko continued his campaign and won the presidency following a re-run of the election, which became known as the Orange Revolution (no relation to Agent Orange)

Kraft pulp and paper mill – Crofton BC

A LOCAL ISSUE – CONTAMINATION FROM PULP MILLS

Since the 1950s or so, British Columbia with its vast forest reserves, was home to a number of large pulp and paper mills. Most of these mills made “bleached kraft pulp” which is a high-quality, white pulp produced by cooking wood chips in an alkaline solution, then treating them with chemicals (like chlorine) to remove lignin and render the pulp white. This process increases brightness and softness, making it ideal for products requiring high purity, such as printing papers, tissues, and packaging, over the natural brown, unbleached alternative.

Another unknown at the time, the bleaching process produced dioxins (including TCDD) as a by-product and was discharged into the local waterways. Dr. Dwernychuk and I worked together on this project. Hatfield Consultants performed monitoring studies to follow the dioxin and other chemicals, in local sediments and animals many of which came to ASL (the laboratory I co-founded). The detection of dioxins and other contaminants resulted in the closure of all shellfish harvesting – from 1988 to the mid-90s.

Once the extent of the contamination from these pulp mills was determined, the Canadian government mandated all mills in Canada to switch from chlorine in the pulp bleaching process to chlorine dioxide, which did not result in dioxin contamination

The core maxim of the precautionary principle is, that an action (i.e. selling or use of a product) should not be taken when there is scientific uncertainty about its potential impact. In the case of Agent Orange particularly, that core principle was egregiously ignored. It is a sad and dark legacy with millions still paying the price.

More articles on toxic exposure and remedial/avoidance measures – https://www.environmentmatters.ca/our-toxic-world/

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Products

by Allan Maynard | Dec 4, 2025 | Plastics, Toxics

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Products

Even cookware, clothing and make-up – have ‘forever chemicals.’ Can we reduce our exposure?

Allan Maynard, MSc. – November 2025

I wrote a series of articles in 2022 about toxic chemicals in the environment (see link below). Despite more research and some regulatory initiatives, the human population around the world is still exposed in many unnecessary ways. This is an update on the most worrisome class of chemicals – called “forever chemicals” (PFAS), because they take decades or even centuries to break down. A such, it is a class of chemicals that should have been heavily regulated decades ago. Even more egregious, the current US administration is proposing to loosen PFAS regulatory requirements and even expand their use on crops.

REMINDER – WHAT ARE FOREVER CHEMICALS (PFAS)?

Approximately 350,000 man-made chemicals are currently on the global market, including plastics, pesticides, and industrial chemicals with about 2,500 new chemicals, introduced each year. Thousands have not been properly evaluated.

This vast array of chemicals is divided into various classes – one such class is– PFAS – which stands for – get ready now – per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances. It is an umbrella term for a family of over 12,000 chemicals that, due to a very strong bond between carbon and fluorine, are prized for their indestructible and non-stick properties. The exact number of PFAS is not really known as hundreds of so called ‘byproducts” are created in the manufacturing processes.

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Products
Click image to enlarge.

WHAT PRODUCTS CONTAIN FOREVER CHEMICALS (PFAS)?

PFAS can be found in non-stick cookware (frying pans, air fryers, rice cookers), parchment paper, fire retardants, stain and water repellents, furniture (as a fire retardant), waterproof clothing and shoes, children’s clothing, takeout food containers, food packaging, carpets and textiles, tents, yoga mats, rubbers and plastics, electronics, dental floss and even make up – such as lip gloss and mascara. This is a long list – and it worth asking – are many or even most uses necessary? I would say a resounding – NO!!

Also sprayed on crops: There are over 60 PFAS registered as active pesticide ingredients permitted in the U.S. for use to kill fungi, insects or weeds. PFAS can also be found in pesticides as inert, or inactive, ingredients, which means they don’t address pests directly but can enhance how well a pesticide works. Unfortunately, manufacturers in the USA aren’t required to disclose individual inert PFAS in their products. PFAS are more stringently regulated in Europe. Canada has a planned phaseout of PFAS, but it will take years to be fully implemented.

WHERE ARE FOREVER CHEMICALS (PFAS) FOUND IN THE ENVIRONMENT?

The answer is everywhere – even in remote locations:

Water: Found in drinking water sources, surface water, oceans, and groundwater.
Air: Can be present in gaseous form or attached to particles and aerosols, which can travel long distances.
Food: especially in fruits and vegetables that have been sprayed with PFAS pesticides – and also in meat, fish and processed food from packaging.
Soil and sediment: Contamination occurs through sources like landfill runoff, contaminated soil, or direct discharge.
Biota – due to bioaccumulation

Misinformation - Science and truth be damned

Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Products

WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH?

The answer? We just don’t know! The recoded cases of illness from exposure to PFAS is associated with the manufacturing process affecting people working in or living near, the factories. As an example, starting in 1998, multiple lawsuits were filed in US courts against DuPont in relation to C8 or PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid), a specific PFAS, used to produce Teflon. Local farmers, residents and company workers claimed illnesses and livestock mortalities linked to pollution from DuPont’s Parkersburg plant in West Virginia. Intense monitoring studies found that residents who drank water from wells near the plant, had a median level of PFOA, 7.6 times more than the average American. In 2012, a science panel concluded (from these studies) a “probable link” existed between C8 and six diseases: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, pregnancy-induced hypertension and high cholesterol. Since then, there have been numerous individual lawsuits with DuPont settling over 3,550 of these for 671 million dollars.

In terms of day-to-day exposure from air, water and food, there is no clear answer to the question of long-term human health. What is known though, every human on the planet has detectable levels of PFAS in their blood.

My one-egg cast iron frying pan and yes, it is non-stick without chemicals.

WHY TAKE THE CHANCE? CAN WE REDUCE OUR EXPOSURE?

The simple answer – YES – by researching before buying cookware, clothing, furniture, cosmetics, etc. Do we really need waterproof jackets? Is it necessary to cook with a non-stick pan? Do our couches need to be stain-resistant and fireproofed?

• Use safer cookware: Swap nonstick pans for stainless steel, cast iron, glass, or ceramic alternatives. The same goes for air-fryers and parchment paper. Teflon pans can be especially concerning if they get heated too high or if they are scraped (as bits of coating will get in your food). A good cast iron skillet and some stainless-steel pots is all you need.

• Use glass for storing food: – even sandwich bags may contain PFAS.

• Filter tap water: Use a pitcher, faucet, or under-sink filter certified to remove PFAS, or a reverse osmosis system. PFAS have even been found in rainwater.

• Limit takeout and packaged foods: It is especially important to not heat food in plastic, grease resistant containers. For sure – I would avoid buying heated food that is stored in plastic – such as rotisserie chicken for sale in most grocery stores.

• Rethink microwave popcorn: Make popcorn on the stovetop instead of using microwave bags, which likely contain PFAS.

• Avoid certain fish: Limit consumption of locally caught freshwater fish, as they can accumulate PFAS.

• Choose non-treated textiles: Look for clothing, carpets, and upholstery that are NOT labeled “stain-resistant” or “water-resistant”. There is mounting evidence that we are breathing in PFAS from such products.

• Clean regularly: Damp dust surfaces with a microfiber cloth and vacuum weekly with a HEPA-filter vacuum to reduce the amount of PFAS dust in your home.

• Check labels: Look for “fluoro” or “perfluoro” on product labels, which indicates the presence of PFAS. Some products may use other PFAS, so be mindful of this.

• Limit cosmetics: Eliminate the use of cosmetics and personal care products that contain PFAS.

• Buy organic foods – this is much harder due to affordability – but it is very concerning that PFAS are used to spray crops.

There is a wealth of information on the internet if consumers want to research prior to buying. However, the challenge with all this, is the lack of forced (or regulated) disclosure from manufacturers of the products we buy and the producers of the food we consume. This needs to be addressed at the policy level – and I am not confident that this issue will be properly addressed when the industry lobby has an untoward sway over the political process.

https://www.environmentmatters.ca/a-daily-dose-of-chemical-exposure/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/18/california-pfas-forever-chemicals

https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/2025/11/ewg-finds-california-crop-fields-showered-25m-pounds-pfas

https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/high-levels-of-dangerous-forever-chemicals-found-in-californias-most-used-insecticide-2023-05-02/

https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-contaminants/dangerous-pfas-chemicals-are-in-your-food-packaging-a3786252074/

Are Plastics Inside Us

by envtam-admin | Nov 4, 2025 | Plastics, Toxics

Are Plastics Inside Us?

It is now clear that we are all part of a massive global experiment to determine if microplastics are affecting human health. There are ways though, to reduce individual exposure. Read on – 4 minute read

Allan Maynard, MSc. – November 2025

Annual plastic production increased from two million tonnes in 1950, to about 475 million tonnes is 2022, and it is projected to grow over 70% by 2040. We are overwhelmed with plastic pollution: At least 8.8 million tons – of plastic waste is entering the ocean – EACH YEAR. Moreover, that is only the tip of the iceberg when we also add in all the waste found on land and accumulating in landfills. Over time, much of this plastic pollution degrades to form microplastics.

Microplastics are now found everywhere in the environment and unfortunately lodged deep inside our bodies. I first wrote about microplastics in 2020 (see link below): Fast forward to 2025, and a multitude of research has now been conducted. This is a brief update with some ideas on measures each of us can consider for reducing daily exposure.

REMINDER – WHAT ARE MICROPLASTICS?

Click image to enlarge.

WHERE ARE MICROPLASTICS FOUND IN THE ENVIRONMENT?

Microplastics are found virtually everywhere in the environment, from the deepest ocean trenches to the highest mountains — in air, soil, water, sediments and biota. As such, they find their way as contaminants in food, beverages, and the air we breathe.

MICROPLASTICS – ARE HUMANS ARE EXPOSED?

Microplastics have been found almost everywhere in humans: in blood, bones, saliva, urine, placentas, an array of organs and even the human brain. One study estimated our brains may contain as much as 5 grams – or roughly a teaspoon. Plastic isn’t just wrapped around our food or woven into our clothes: it is lodged deep inside us.

Microplastics enter our bodies by inhalation (contaminated air) and ingestion (food, water, beverages). There is a wide range of estimates dealing with how much exposure and its greatly dependant on factors such as water source, air quality, diet and lifestyle. An article by the World Economic Forum claims we inhale an average of around 60,000 particles per day. In terms of mass, one widely cited estimate suggests a person may ingest as much as 5 grams of microplastics per week, equivalent to the weight of a credit card. However, this estimate has been disputed in other studies. The important point – microplastics are ubiquitous and are now deep inside every human on earth.

WILL THIS EXPOSURE AFFECT OUR HEALTH?

A recent article in the medical journal “The Lancet” describes microplastics as an underestimated and under-regulated health crisis. Microplastics may affect human health by causing inflammation, oxidative stress, and DNA damage at a cellular level. They can also absorb and then release chemicals and pathogens, potentially leading to a range of issues including cardiovascular problems, reproductive harm, and endocrine disruption. A very recent (2025 study) identified microplastics in the brains of human cadavers. Most notably from this study – those who had been diagnosed with dementia prior to their death had up to 10 times as much plastic in their brains compared to those without the condition.

While definitive causal links are still under investigation, research is exploring associations with diseases like cancer and metabolic disorders. It will likely take decades to establish links to human health. Sadly, we are all part of a large, decades long experiment. Minimizing exposure is our best course of action.

A single one litre plastic bottle can contain as many as 240,000 different plastic particles of varying dimensions and materials – from NIH 2025 – see below.

WHAT CAN EACH OF US DO?

Most of what MUST be done, is at the policy level, but unfortunately, political will is lacking. Single use plastic should be banned. The plastics industry must be held accountable and forced to manufacture ONLY plastic products that can be easily recycled (presently only around 10% of plastic products can be recycled). Plastic production must be reduced – sadly – global talks (August 2025) to develop a landmark treaty to deal with plastic pollution with a legally binding production cap have once again failed.

That leaves us with our own individual actions. Here are some suggestions:

Consider a reuseable water filter if you suspect that the water source could have microplastics (it should not be needed in Metro Vancouver)
Don’t buy processed foods that are stored in plastic containers – in fact, most health professionals recommend avoiding ultra processed food altogether
Use only glass or steel containers for heating food with a microwave oven – heat greatly accelerates the shedding of plastic particles and the leaching of plastic chemicals
Minimize or even stop the use of single use plastics like water bottles, straws, plastic bags
Don’t use plastic cutting boards
Be aware of non-stick cookware – especially Teflon coatings that could be scratched
Clean the air in your home with a high efficiency air cleaner
Avoid wearing synthetic clothing
Refuse to buy washing pods (encased in plastic) for laundry or dishwashers
Refuse to buy products that contain micro-beads (these are already microplastics)
Try to buy beverages that come in cans or glass bottles – see figure above and the study of bottled water by the NIH
Check out your tea bags – many are made with plastics and will release thousands of particles per cup – better to use loose tea if possible or make sure the tea bag is paper
Rinse rice thoroughly – especially instant rice
Reduce intake of sea food – especially filter feeders – oysters, clams and mussels that accumulate microplastics
Clean your house frequently – mopping non carpet floors and having a good filter on your vacuum

It is especially important for younger people to minimize exposure. Exposure to toxins is usually cumulative, and the consequences often manifest over the long term. This process, often referred to as bioaccumulation or biomagnification, means that even small, repeated exposures to certain harmful substances can lead to a significant buildup in the body or the environment over time

NEXT UP – is our cookware toxic? Hint – maybe — but the fix is easy.

https://www.environmentmatters.ca/micro-plastics-the-hidden-consequence-of-plastics-use/

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20250723-how-do-the-microplastics-in-our-bodies-affect-our-health

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/global-plastics-treaty-consensus-1.7610277

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgpddpldleo

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/02/how-microplastics-get-into-the-food-chain/#:~:text=It%20is%20estimated%20that%20people,and%20even%20lower%20limb%20joints.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/plastic-particles-bottled-water#:~:text=To%20test%20their%20new%20high,the%20seven%20categories%20of%20plastic.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(25)00086-4/fulltext

How to Minimize Exposure to Toxins

by Allan Maynard | Aug 4, 2022 | Toxics

How to Minimize Exposure to Toxins

Part 4 of 4 – series on exposure to man-made chemicals

After reading my series of articles on man-made chemicals, some may now have the impression that we are living in a toxic soup with risks around every corner. This is not the case for most of us that don’t face —

occupational exposure (ie – farm workers, chemical factory workers, firefighters, etc.),
proximity exposure – (living in an area near heavy industry and thus dealing with contaminated water and air), or
living in a city with highly polluted air.

However, our risks are not zero. Many dangerous chemicals can be closer to home than we think. They are present in everyday products such as furniture, clothing, food, water, hygiene products etc. Traces of some of the longer lasting chemicals have been detected in the bloodstream of practically everyone tested.

https://www.environmentmatters.ca/a-daily-dose-of-chemical-exposure/

It becomes increasingly clear that the chemical industry directly, along with the various ways in which chemicals are used in everyday products, are inadequately regulated. There are many cases in which chemicals are introduced without sufficient study. Moreover, their use is often not justified as was recently exposed in the case of widespread use of fire retardants in furniture and carpets.

https://www.environmentmatters.ca/toxic-exposure-forever-chemicals-part-1/

THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

Here is a common lament. “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”. This is the idea behind the precautionary principle, which helps industry and regulators weigh whether an action or decision should be taken when there is insufficient knowledge about potential harmful effects on the environment, or on the health of people. The precautionary principle implies that, when there is uncertainty about the potential damaging effects of substances, especially those that are persistent and toxic in the environment, it is best to err on the side of precaution. The correct approach is to prevent exposure, rather than try to clean up or cure the negative health effects of an environmental exposure after it has occurred.

http://mleead.umich.edu/files/Precautionary-Principle.pdf

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/pdf/publications/final_report_pp.pdf

Evidence abounds that the precautionary principle has not been adhered to for a majority of man-made chemicals on the market today. Here is but one example – with regulations in the USA.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/19/our-broken-congresss-latest-effort-to-fix-our-broken-toxic-chemicals-law/

PRUDENT PRECAUTIONS

Given the concern about the various ways in which we can be exposed on a day-to-day basis, and the lack of knowledge about the potential long-term effects of these exposures, here are some suggestions for taking some prudent precautions. In some ways – this list may seem unduly cautious – but they are relatively easy to apply and will be effective. Bearing in mind that many of these chemicals accumulate with some affecting our genes, it is especially important to apply these precautions for young children.

For brevity, the rational for these precautions is not stated in this summary, as that information is presented in a previous article – in the link below.

https://www.environmentmatters.ca/a-daily-dose-of-chemical-exposure/

How to minimize exposure to toxins

Here are some suggestions:

When exposed to air pollutants – as so many were last summer due to wildfires, wear an N-95 mask (or equivalent) and keep air filters in home heating/AC systems clean.

https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/best-masks-for-viruses-air-pollution/

Cooking with gas – turn the fan on high. If considering a new stove and or oven – don’t buy a gas appliance.
If buying new furniture – insist on it being free of PFAS (forever chemicals used as fire retardants).
Tap water – run the tap (and collect the water for other uses) for about 30 seconds to clear possible metals that dissolve as the water stands in the plumbing.
Tap water – buy an activated carbon filter if there is a possibility of trace organo-chlorine chemicals (disinfection by-products)
Minimize using canned food. If glass is an option in buying certain products – take it.
Avoid buying beverages in plastic bottles – especially alcohol. Avoid bottled water. Do not allow bottled water (or other beverages) to heat up by leaving them in a warm vehicle.
Be extremely cautious buying cosmetics – especially lip gloss which can contain PFAS. This industry is a “wild west” in terms of being very poorly regulated. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/beauty-industry-in-the-us-is-the-wild-wild-west-beautycounter-ceo-133509049.html

Fruit and vegetables – wash well before use. If possible, avoid buying products from countries not properly regulated in terms of pesticide use.
Fish – eat larger fish like tuna infrequently (few times per month) to minimize exposure to mercury.
Meat – whenever possible buy meat that is antibiotic free. Eat only small quantities of grilled meat and ensure little or no burning of the meats.
Fast food – it is best to avoid altogether given most of the food wrappings contain PFAS (forever chemicals)
Household and garden chemicals – use very carefully in well ventilated areas and follow the instructions exactly.

How to minimize exposure to toxins

This is the last of the series on human exposure to man-made chemical. Coming up – the environmental impacts of our food supply.

Linking Illness to Chemical Exposure

by Allan Maynard | May 27, 2022 | Toxics

My wife of over 50 years suffered from Alzheimer’s disease. Were toxic chemicals used on the family farm a possible causative factor? We will never know. The linking of illness to chemical exposure is extremely complex as the following article explains.

On March 18, 2021 – we (friends and family) lost a beautiful soul to Alzheimer’s disease. After my wife Margrit’s diagnosis in 2014, we struggled to accept the inexorable loss of her most precious assets that defined who she was. Of course, we also asked why. How could this happen? The assumption – genetics was the main factor. Afterall, her mother died of Alzheimer’s in 1987 and her youngest brother is now in a care home for the same illness.

But then – there are indications that genetics may be only part of the story. There have been no recorded cases of dementia among Margrit’s many Swiss relatives. Moreover, it is early onset dementia, that is typically linked to genetic factors. So the question arises – could exposure to chemicals used on the family farm be a factor? Margrit and her siblings would describe the arial spraying of their crops with pesticides (including DDT in the early 50s) and even running behind the low flying planes! They grew mushrooms which could have exposed them to a variety of chemicals as well as mushroom spores which have been associated with illness, most notably lung inflammation. Their water supply was a shallow well that could have been contaminated with some of the farming chemicals. It’s a legitimate question to pose. Evidence from recent studies shows a possible association between chronic pesticide exposure and an increased prevalence of dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia.

THE CONCLUSION? We will never know the full answer. The linking of illness to chemical exposure is incredibly complex, even in the most extreme cases in which the exposure has been properly measured and the illnesses well documented. Consider 3 examples that demonstrate these challenges – especially when cases go to the courts for which the proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt.

Smoking – In the early 1950s, the tobacco industry had sufficient evidence that smoking could be associated with cancer. By the 1970s there were scores of lawsuits associated with illnesses from smoking, but the tobacco industry was generally successful at defending itself mainly because the cancer link was not unequivocal. Industry could claim that other factors such as genetics, lifestyle, and exposure to other toxins, could have been factors. It was not until the late 1990s that the tobacco industry was held accountable and faced massive financial settlements.

Chromium – Hinkley, California is a small town in San Bernardino in southern California. In 1952, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) installed a compressor station near the town as part of a gas pipeline system linking Texas to California. Chromium (hexavalent chromium) was used as a corrosion inhibitor in its cooling system. The contaminated water was discharged into unlined pools, thus leaking into the aquifer serving Hinkley’s residents water needs.

Julia Roberts in the movie Erin Brockovich

The residents of Hinkley experienced a wide range of illnesses – asthma, nosebleeds, miscarriages, and several cancers. Medical research at that time did indeed demonstrate that Hexavalent Chromium could be associated with many of those illnesses. Erin Brockovich, a clerk at a local law firm, was instrumental in initiating legal action against PG&E in 1993. The case was featured in a blockbuster movie starring Julia Roberts as the law clerk Erin Brockovich.

In defending PG&E, lawyers tried to de-link people’s health problems from exposure to chromium. They likely would have been successful except for the fact that the plaintiffs had evidence that the company knew about the water contamination since 1965 but did nothing about it. PG&E eventually managed to take the case out of courts and reach a settlement through mediation, paying the plaintiffs a total of 333 million dollars, one of the largest settlements of that nature, in US history.

Teflon Manufacture – From 1951 to 2013, Teflon was produced by Dupont’s plant in Parkersburg, West Virginia. The manufacturing process used Perfluorooctanoic acid, (or PFOA or C-8) – one of many of a class of fluorinated hydrocarbons now known as forever chemicals due to their long-term stability. In 1998 multiple lawsuits were filed against Dupont. Local farmers, residents and company workers claimed to have suffered illnesses and livestock mortalities linked to pollution from DuPont’s Parkersburg plant. DuPont was forced to provide millions of dollars for medical monitoring of over 70,000 people.

In 2012, a science panel concluded (from these studies) a “probable link” existed between C8 and six diseases: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, pregnancy-induced hypertension and high cholesterol. Since then, there were numerous individual lawsuits from victims of PFOA-related diseases. In February 2017, DuPont settled over 3,550 lawsuits for 671 million dollars.

A pattern emerges – The above examples exemplify the challenges in linking illness from exposure to chemicals – even in the most egregious of cases. The 3 points that become clear are –

Evidence denialism – The industries that should have been responsible had access to credible knowledge concerning the health impacts of exposures but resorted to tactics to suppress such knowledge.
Decades to prove – It took decades to eventually reach the point to when the offending industries were held financially accountable.
Delinking – In court proceedings, the industries were initially able to argue cases de-linking the people’s health problems from exposure to chemicals. However, the court cases eventually succeeded in large part because of the proven cover-ups and delays.

Fortunately, there are some notable examples in which compensation is provided on the presumption of a link. A very important example — Firefighters die of cancer at significantly higher rates than the public. One of the largest studies involved examining nearly 30,000 urban U.S. firefighters over a span of almost 60 years. The study confirmed that firefighters have a nine per cent higher chance of developing cancer at some point during their lives, and a 14 per cent higher probability of subsequently dying from cancer than the general population. In most jurisdictions – firefighters are properly compensated and rightly so. For example – in British Columba if a firefighter develops one of the listed cancers after a certain period of employment, it is presumed that the cancer arose from their employment. The firefighter is then eligible for workers’ compensation benefits without having to prove the cancer is work-related.

So – where does this leave the general population? As presented in the previous blog, many dangerous chemicals can be closer to home than we think. Man-made chemicals are everywhere: in water and dust, food packaging, personal hygiene products and household cleaners, furniture and electronics. Recently (this May 2022), an international group of scientists analyzed more than 1,200 scientific studies where chemicals had been measured in food packaging, processing equipment, tableware and reusable food containers.

This is clearly wrong. These chemicals are introduced without sufficient study and their use is often not even justified as has been recently exposed in the case of widespread use of fire retardants in furniture and carpets. The chemical industry must be much more effectively regulated. There are ongoing legislative initiatives in this direction but industry, through various channels (think tanks, associations, etc.) are unrelentingly directing massive financial investments towards lobbying and financing the campaigns of sympathetic political candidates. It is frustrating to observe. We can only hope that evidence-based decision making will eventually prevail.

As a respite from this rather gloomy picture, the final article in this series on toxins – coming soon — will outline ways in which we can minimize toxic exposure in our everyday lives.

REFERENCES

About the link of chemicals to Alzheimer’s disease

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23416173/

About firefighters

https://www.firefightingincanada.com/cancer-in-firefighters/

https://www.jstor.org/stable/45009338

https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2022LBR0009-000637

About forever chemicals

https://www.environmentmatters.ca/a-daily-dose-of-chemical-exposure/

Recent food study

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/19/more-than-3000-potentially-harmful-chemicals-food-packaging-report-shows

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2022.2067828

Recommended viewing – two movies which dramatically portray the difficult challenges of taking industry to the courts

Erin Brockovich

Dark Waters

A Daily Dose of Chemical Exposure

by Allan Maynard | Mar 30, 2022 | Toxics

A Daily Dose of Chemical Exposure – There are over 9 million known chemicals – many of which are man-made. In the United States, there are some 90,000 chemicals licensed for use; In Canada and the European Union – that number is around 25,000.

There can be great discrepancies country by country, in terms of how these chemicals are regulated. As we saw in the previous article about pesticides and the “forever chemicals’ used as fire retardants, it can take time to document adverse effects. The needed regulations are thus implemented too slowly, often exacerbated by industry delay tactics.

Health effects from toxic chemicals are especially consequential in the following circumstances – a) from occupational exposure – farm workers, firefighters, factory workers; b) from proximity exposure – living in an area near heavy industry and thus dealing with contaminated water and air; and c) living in a city with highly polluted air – cities in China and India are ranked the worst.

Most of us, especially in developed countries are not facing such consequential exposures and therefore may not be all that concerned about exposure to toxic chemicals. This is valid to a point. Unfortunately, many dangerous chemicals can be closer to home than we think. They are present in everyday products such as furniture, clothing, food, water, hygiene products etc.

Here are some examples of our day-to-day exposures – not necessarily in any particular order and without specific details about health effects; each bullet point below could be the subject of a full article. To be clear – the information presented is not meant to be alarmist. It is likely that the health risks for many are minimal. But the health risks are also not zero. A little knowledge about these exposures will be useful especially for parents with young children.

Daily Dose of Chemical Exposure

Air pollution – Globally, air pollution causes about 7 million premature deaths a year. For the most part, this is due to the inhalation of particulate matter (PM2.5) – less than 2.5 microns (about 1/30th the width of a human hair. These tiny articles can also “carry’ toxic chemicals such as by-products of combustion. Air pollution is mostly prevalent in heavily industrialized cities in China, India, Indonesia, and Pakistan. However, due to the increasing prevalence of forest fires in North America, Russia, Europe and Australia, exposure to PM2.5 is increasing even in rural communities.

Smoking – The dangers of smoking and second-hand smoke are very well documented.

In the kitchen – Cooking with natural gas produces nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and formaldehyde (CH2O or HCHO). All these pollutants are health risks. As such it is critical to use a hood fan when cooking. Also of concern is PFAS (yes them again) when cooking with Teflon coated cookware. It should not be a big concern if the pans are newer than 2015. See a previous blog on this web site.

Indoor air – As discussed in the previous article, fire retardants are everywhere in our homes. PFAS – scientifically known as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, have been called ‘forever chemicals’ because they take hundreds or even thousands of years to break down. Exposure to these chemicals can be in the form of breathing in off-gases but also microfibers that can flake off furniture and carpeting.

Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), have been called ‘forever chemicals’ due the fact they take hundreds of years to break down. There are over 4700 different PFAS molecules.

Tap water – PFAS – a study from the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit advocacy organization, reveals a widespread problem: the drinking water of most North Americans likely contains traces (parts per trillion) of PFAS – because they are so widely used. The problem is widespread in Europe as well, but efforts are underway to ban many of these substances.

Tap water – Lead – Another concern in water, is lead exposure – the lead leaching from galvanized pipes. Flint, Michigan was a recent example that was widely covered by the media. Flint changed its water source from treated water from Lake Huron to water from the Flint River without adequate use of corrosion inhibitors. Water samples tested in a number of Canadian cities, including Montreal, Regina, Saskatoon, Moose Jaw, and Prince Rupert, were found to contain elevated lead levels. Lead in drinking water is regulated and should thus be frequently monitored

Tap water – by-products from chlorination – The vast majority of drinking water systems use chlorine to disinfect the water supply. Natural organic material such as tannins and lignins, when present in the surface waters, reacts with chlorine which can create chemicals called ‘trihalomethanes’ including chloroform – a banned chemical. Trihalomethanes in drinking water are regulated and must be routinely monitored.

Canned food – the aluminum cans used are lined with plastic films – some (or many formulations of which contain Bisphenol A, or A 2017 study carried out in California tested a variety of canned products. Forty percent showed detectable levels of BPA. An earlier Canadian study revealed similar findings. BPA exposure is linked to multiple health effects including fertility issues, altered brain development, cancer, and heart complications. It is thus banned for many uses – especially baby products.

Bottled beverages – Most bottled water as well as other beverages are sold in plastic #1, also known as polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Research shows that PET may be an endocrine disruptor, altering our hormonal systems. Although this type of plastic is BPA free, phthalates (plasticizers) in bottles can still leach into the water, especially when exposed to high temperatures or stored for an extended period of time. Basically, phthalates are practically in all products stored in plastic. Also of note – bottled water can contain significant amounts of microplastics.

It’s shocking how widespread the PFAS contamination is across many types of makeup products – especially considering obvious ingestion of these chemicals when used in lipstick and lip gloss.

Cosmetics – There is such a variety of cosmetics on the market with products coming from around the world. In general, the cosmetics industry seems to be very poorly regulated. Indeed, toxic substances may not even be listed in the ‘ingredients” panel. Here are some examples – formaldehyde in hair straightening products and nail polish // coal tar in eye shadow // parabens in skin and hair products // dioxane in dyes and shampoos. Of particular concern is the use of PFAS (AGAIN) -to make lipstick, lotions, cosmetics, and hair products more water-resistant, durable and spreadable as well as the use of benzene, despite the fact it’s a banned carcinogen

Pesticides in food – For the most part – pesticide use in the USA, Canada, and Europe, is well regulated. However – According to a recent (2019) study by the Environmental Working Group, there were several fruits and vegetables that contained detectable levels of pesticides – such as strawberries, spinach, kale, peaches, etc. Although, the levels detected, were below published health guidelines, this may not be of comfort to those wanting to completely avoid exposure.

Antibiotics and other chemicals in Meat – Industrial agriculture to supply the world’s growing demand for meat protein involves animals ‘farmed’ under very crowded conditions. This then, requires the use of antibiotics used in ‘sub-therapeutic’ doses to prevent disease. This in turn raises the risk of transmitting drug-resistant bacteria to humans either by direct infection or by transferring resistance genes from agriculture into human pathogens. A separate issue with meat is caused by grilling – no doubt a favourite way to cook meat. Meat cooked this way exposes us to by-products of combustion – chemicals called Poly-aromatic hydrocarbons – PAH

Fish – Mercury – Different types of fish and other seafood contain varying amounts of mercury. Larger fish such as tuna usually contain higher levels. They eat many smaller fish, which contain small amounts of mercury. As it’s not easily excreted from their bodies, levels accumulate over time. This process is known as bioaccumulation.

Fast food – PFAS (again!!) – A variety of PFAS compounds are commonly used to keep your burger from sticking to its fast-food wrapper, your salad from turning its fiber-based bowl into a soggy mess, and your popcorn bag from bursting into flames in the microwave.

Household products – cleaners, paints, paint thinners, etc. are generally toxic and must be used in accordance with the instructions. Of particular concern are paint strippers. The active ingredient in the most effective paint strippers is dichloromethane, also called methylene chloride. Dichloromethane has serious health risks including death, is likely a carcinogen, and is banned in some countries for consumer use.

seem overwhelming with almost no options to avoid exposure

In the next article (Part 3), I will outline the challenges in linking illness to exposure and thus ensuring adequate regulations. Buy it is not as bad as it seems.

In the final article (Part 4), I will outline options for avoiding, or at least minimizing risks.