Dozens of chemical compounds are actively present in Americans' daily routines, from the products used for cleaning homes to the internal hardware powering the technologies that uphold so many essential aspects of our personal and professional lives. A significant number of these substances cause no harm at all, but those that are dangerous will, not infrequently, appear alongside one another and have the potential to engender new health problems or exacerbate existing issues.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recently released a study specifically concerned with chemicals that the group's research found were present at alarming levels in certain foods, as well as within these products' packaging. Due to the dangers posed by such substances to young children, the study will likely attract significant attention in the media and especially among parents, as well as with regulators and representatives of the U.S. chemical industry.
Further evidence of PFOA/PFOS hazards
There has been no small amount of discussion regarding the dangers of perofluoroalkyl-based chemicals (called PFOAs, PFOSs or, if referring to both, PFCs) in recent months, particularly as various cases of these materials' spread became known among the American public.
The substances are quite commonly found in foam used as flame retardants at military installations – as noted in the July 2017 case of well-water contamination around Fairchild Air Force Base in Spokane, Washington – as well as certain types of food packaging. (Grease-proof plastics, often seen in fast-food restaurants, are the kinds most often containing PFCs.) Per the AAP's study – which corroborated previous research – PFCs can cause low birth weight in infants born to mothers exposed to the substances, adversely impacting these women's fertility and also weakening the immune systems of anyone in frequent contact with them.
Other chemicals in packaging could have far worse health consequences
There was much more to the AAP research than simple confirmation of what numerous scientists already confirmed about PFCs. It also highlighted five other chemicals in foods and their packaging that carried plenty of troubling side effects of their own:
- Styrene: Though classified as a carcinogen by the U.S. National Toxicology Program, this chemical still sometimes appears in flavorings.
- Phtalates: This category of chemical is found in numerous plastics and can increase the chances of obesity and heart disease in children, as well as impeding the normal development of male genitalia.
- Bisphenols: These substances cause side effects not unlike those seen with an excess of estrogen, including body fat increases, early-onset puberty, nerve damage, immunodeficiency and infertility. Most commonly used in can liners, bisphenols – along with styrene and phtalates – are also present in Nos. 3, 6 and 7 recyclable plastics, according to Well and Good.
- Nitrates and nitrites: While arguably the least dangerous substances on this list, these preservatives are potentially harmful to hormones in the thyroid.
- Percholate: Also detrimental to thyroid function and capable of causing improper development of the brain, this chemical typically shows up in certain varieties of dry food packaging, as an anti-static agent.
Children stand to suffer the most from these chemicals simply because of their understandably robust appetites, as Dr. Leonardo Trasande – an environmental health research professional at New York University's School of Medicine and a co-author of the AAP's study – said in an interview with U.S. News & World Report.
"Pound for pound, they eat more food, so they have higher levels of exposure compared to us adults," Trasande told the news publication. "Their organs are still developing in various ways, such that [adverse] effects on that development can be permanent and lifelong."
Experts urge the FDA to intervene
Alongside fellow authors Rachel Shaffer and Sheela Sathyanarayana, Trasande pointed out what they consider to be the ineffective nature of current Food and Drug Administration stipulations regarding food additives, including all of the chemicals described above. They believe the FDA's "generally recognized as safe" (or GRAS) classification is vague, in part because the agency lacks the data to create a sensible rubric for additive safety (and may not currently have the resources necessary for collecting that information).
Because of this, the researchers recommended that the FDA update its safety assessment program across the board, including GRAS rules and other guidelines. Additionally, they urged the agency to create a special classification for additives that had little to no available information regarding their dangers, and even to go as far as putting all previously approved chemicals through a brand-new testing process.
Given the FDA's handling of these matters thus far, it's not clear when such changes could be implemented. However, the AAP and its study's authors have certainly presented a wealth of evidence to stress the dangers of the aforementioned substances.
