Banned contaminants and not

As the industry develops new compounds and materials to improve the efficacy of its products, it is faced with the dilemma of whether their use will have implications for the health of the population. We often make economic interests prevail and prioritize rapid introduction before verifying its effects.

This is what happened with chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) compounds used as propellants in aerosols or refrigerants. These compounds, fail to be removed by the Open-Air Factor, the natural cleaning reactions that occur in the upper layer of the atmosphere. This results in an average life ranging from 75 to 200 years. In the 70s, a decrease in the ozone layer that protects us from UV radiation began to be detected. It was not until the late 80’s that the Montreal Protocol was adopted internationally by which all countries committed to stop using CFCs in the year 2000. This has been a success story studied in the academic field as good regulatory practices. But not all cases are so successful. All initiatives to eliminate smoking, for example, have been quite ineffective, although much progress has been made. Sanitary recommendations, price increases, restrictions, warnings on the packaging, have worked very slowly. World prevalence remains above two thirds among men.

Influencing the population is much more difficult than the industry. Prohibiting the use of certain substances under the threat of fines or heavy taxes in a dissuasive way results in companies avoiding such costs. Although it is not always so easy. If fines for polluting are not deterrent enough, companies will rather pay fines than spend in avoiding pollution.. The same happens with the elimination of slurry or waste and industrial by-products.

In the population, ignorance, laziness, rationalization, short-term costs versus uncertain long-term benefits, are very difficult barriers to overcome. There are behavioral economics measures, such as those proposed by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein in their book “Nudge” (1). Some of their recommendations include considering appropriate behavior as a default option, such as having to consciously and actively uncheck a box on tax payments, or in transactions, to donate a small percentage to sustainability funds. It costs a little to refuse, but much more to do it voluntarily. There are many more at our disposal. Knowing well the cognitive biases of human behavior and acting on them would bring us much faster progress in preserving our health and that of the planet. (Well, the planet doesn’t care, it can go from the Anthropocene to human extinction like a small hiccup in its 4,500 million years of existence).

Let’s be optimistic, we’ve made a lot of progress: We’ve banned the use of asbestos, a group of fibrous minerals commonly used in building materials, which causes lung cancer, mesothelioma, and other respiratory diseases. Also Lead, used in pipes, paint, gasoline and other products, because it causes brain damage and developmental delays. Or Mercury, also toxic. We discovered that DDT, the most widely used insecticide for years, was harmful to the environment and human health, and we banned its use. Or others less known like the CFCs mentioned above or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) widely used as refrigerants and lubricants that are toxic and carcinogenic. The list continues with many pesticides that have been banned, or Phthalates, chemicals used to soften plastics and as additives in many personal care products, related to reproductive and developmental problems.

There are many others that are already in the spotlight, such as the Teflon used as non-stick, which releases toxic vapors when heated to high temperatures, already banned in many countries. Bisphenol A (BPA), an industrial chemical used to make plastics and has been linked to hormone disruption, reproductive and developmental problems. Also Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFCs) used in nonstick cookware, waterproof clothing, and food packaging that have been linked to cancer, or hormonal disruption. Formaldehyde, a colorless gas with a pungent odor, is used in building materials, hardboard products, and personal care products. It is a known carcinogen and can also cause respiratory and skin irritation. Formaldehyde can also be released by cosmetics and personal care products.

The list goes on with many more compounds: Pesticides, fertilizers, preservatives, nitrosamines, mycotoxins, microparticles (PM), and many volatile organic compounds that we breathe every day.

While the administrations and the industry keep negotiating, we can make many decisions. Some of these decisions may carry some cost for the following reason: Mass-produced products are subsidized by the taxes we pay to sustain the costs they create: Health costs due to pollution, or use of toxic additives, the costs of recycling due to excess packaging, the costs of eliminating polluting emissions, the consequences of increasing obesity, CVD, diabetes from false statements and promotion of unhealthy habits. Should these products have to bear the costs infringed to society, their price would not be so cheap and ecological or sustainable products would have a comparable if not lower price since the latter would not bear these hidden costs.

As much as possible, we should avoid products with the compounds described above, but despite making this small economic effort, it is possible that the outsourced cleaning company where we work, does not have the same sensitivity. Or for whatever reason, the occupational risk prevention measures in our job are not adequate.

We are going to give just one example, but the list is very long: A sector that has enjoyed spectacular growth are nail care centers. How many times have we seen the workers, apply lacquers and chemical products a few centimeters from the nails, and so inhaling  formaldehyde and other toxic products used in the formulation of these cosmetics?

The use of measures to counteract these problems already exists, and is not excessively expensive. We may use air purifiers that had their peak during the onset of the pandemic. But not all meet their goals. HEPA filters can retain some particles, but they are useless in cases where there is a variable input flow of contaminants, either by people or by the use of products. To be effective, they would have to absorb a lot of air quickly, have various types of filtering phases and filter cleaning devices, which implies a lot of volume, noise, and consumption, apart from unaffordable price.

There are other purifiers, such as those that use the Open-Air Factor technology that, instead of filtering, emit the natural detergent that we talked about at the beginning of this article. This technology, developed by researchers from CRESCA UPC (2), is the one used by PUROH products. Due to its characteristics, this technology converts all these substances into innocuous compounds (oxygen, water and soluble carbonates) not only those in the air but also those on surfaces and that filters cannot aspirate.

In general, there is a long way to go, but with a small personal commitment we have tools at our fingertips that we can use: Recycle, Reuse, and Reduce, the three R’s of sustainability. Consuming products from organic farming and Km 0, cosmetics and cleaning products without volatile compounds. Consuming “Real Food” products. Check product labeling. In our workplaces, press for employers to follow risk prevention recommendations. Check that the buildings where we live are healthy. Ventilate or use purifiers. Escape from a sedentary life and use public transport or walk.

(1) Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness by Richard H. Thaler, Cass R. Sustein. Penguin Books. First edition Feb 24, 2009. 

(2) CRESCA – Food Safety and Control Research Center. Polytechnic University of Catalonia