.png)
"The Dose Makes the Poison": A Flawed Perspective on Chemical Safety
- sophiaduplin
- Jul 17, 2024
- 7 min read
The phrase "the dose makes the poison" is often used to reassure consumers about the safety of chemicals in everyday products. While this principle, attributed to 16th-century physician Paracelsus, has some merit in toxicology, it oversimplifies the complex reality of chemical exposure in our modern world.
Let's explore why this statement may be flawed and potentially misleading when applied to cosmetics, personal care products, and household cleaners.
Table of Contents:
Limited FDA Control Over Cosmetics and Household Products
One of the key issues is the limited regulatory oversight of these products. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has surprisingly little authority over cosmetics. Unlike drugs or food additives, cosmetic products and ingredients (except for color additives) do not require FDA approval before they go to market.
From FDA.gov: "Companies and individuals who manufacture or market cosmetics have a legal responsibility to ensure the safety of their products. Neither the law nor FDA regulations require specific tests to demonstrate the safety of individual products or ingredients. The law also does not require cosmetic companies to share their safety information with FDA."
The FDA can't recall dangerous cosmetic products or require manufacturers to register their cosmetic establishments, products, or ingredients.
This regulatory gap means that many potentially harmful substances can make their way into our daily-use products without thorough safety evaluations.
The FDA only prohibits or restricts a handful of ingredients in cosmetics, including bithionol, mercury compounds, and certain cattle materials.
This is in stark contrast to the European Union, which bans over 1,300 chemicals from cosmetics that are known or suspected to cause cancer, genetic mutation, reproductive harm, or birth defects.
The Proliferation of Chemical Ingredients
Since the Industrial Revolution, there has been an explosion in the number of synthetic chemicals created and used in consumer products. The Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry has registered over 180 million unique chemical substances.
While not all of these are used in consumer products, it's estimated that there are around 80,000 chemicals in commercial use, with approximately 2,000 new ones introduced each year.
The sheer number of these chemicals makes it challenging to thoroughly test each one for safety, especially considering potential long-term effects and interactions with other substances.
The Cumulative Effect of Ingredients
The "dose makes the poison" argument often fails to account for the cumulative and combinatorial effects of multiple chemical exposures. The average person uses about 9 personal care products daily, containing about 126 unique ingredients.
And this doesn't include exposure from household cleaning products, food packaging, and environmental sources.
While individual ingredients might be deemed safe at certain levels, we have limited understanding of how these chemicals interact when combined. The potential for cumulative effects, where the combination of chemicals creates a more potent effect than each individually, is a significant concern that isn't addressed by the "dose makes the poison" mentality.
Corporate Influence and Priorities
The personal care and cleaning product industries are dominated by large corporations with significant financial resources. These companies often spend millions on lobbying efforts to influence regulations and public opinion.
This corporate influence can lead to policies that prioritize profits over public health, further undermining the "dose makes the poison" argument.
For instance, the Personal Care Products Council, the leading national trade association for the cosmetic and personal care products industry, spent over $1.8 million on lobbying in 2020.
Many beauty products contain inexpensive synthetic chemicals and preservatives, which are cost-effective but potentially harmful. Ingredients like formaldehyde, parabens, and phthalates are commonly used despite being linked to cancer, hormone disruption, and other health issues. These chemicals are cheaper than safer alternatives, allowing companies to maximize their profit margins.
The Burden of Proof and Legal Challenges
Another significant issue with the current approach to chemical safety is the burden of proof. In the U.S., chemicals are often treated as "innocent until proven guilty," meaning they can be used in products until substantial evidence proves they are harmful. This approach places the burden of proof on consumers and regulatory bodies rather than on manufacturers.
To get a company to stop using a harmful ingredient, consumers often need to prove that a specific ingredient is making them sick or causing harm. This can involve pursuing legal action or a class action lawsuit.
For example, several class action lawsuits have been filed against major cosmetic brands for allegedly using harmful chemicals in their products. These lawsuits claim that products contain substances like per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are linked to various health issues.
However, proving harm in court can be a lengthy and challenging process. It requires substantial scientific evidence and often involves complex legal battles. This reactive approach means that harmful chemicals can remain in use for years before enough evidence is gathered to take action.
This approach is akin to granting chemicals the 5th Amendment right of "innocent until proven guilty". While this principle is fundamental to the justice system for individuals, it is problematic when applied to chemical safety. By the time overwhelming evidence is gathered to prove a chemical's harm, significant damage may already have been done to public health.
Variability in Sensitivity
The Missouri Department of Health notes that some people may be exposed to a chemical and not get sick, while others may be more sensitive and experience severe reactions.
Factors such as age, gender, genetics, pregnancy, and preexisting health conditions can influence an individual's sensitivity to chemicals.
For example, children are particularly vulnerable due to their developing bodies and behaviors, such as frequent hand-to-mouth contact. Pregnant women and individuals with compromised health may also be more susceptible to adverse effects from chemical exposures.
The "dosage of poison" may be different for each person.
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS)
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) is a condition where individuals experience a wide range of symptoms in response to low levels of chemical exposure. Symptoms can include headaches, fatigue, dizziness, nausea, and respiratory issues.
While the exact cause of MCS is not well understood, it highlights that even low levels of chemicals considered safe for the general population can have significant effects on sensitive individuals.
A study found that 12.8% of the population reports medically diagnosed MCS, and 25.9% report chemical sensitivity. These individuals often experience adverse health effects from everyday products, such as fragranced consumer goods, which can lead to significant lifestyle limitations and health issues.
Emerging Science on Low-Dose Effects
Recent scientific research is challenging the traditional toxicological model that "the dose makes the poison." Studies are increasingly showing that some chemicals, particularly endocrine disruptors, can have significant biological effects at very low doses.
For example, research on bisphenol A (BPA) has shown that this common chemical used in plastics can disrupt hormonal systems at doses far below what was previously considered safe. This challenges the assumption that there's always a safe threshold below which a chemical has no effect.
Limited Long-Term Research
While we should absolutely respect and listen to the work of scientists, healthcare professionals, and regulatory bodies, it's crucial to acknowledge the limitations of current research.
Many safety studies focus on short-term, acute effects of chemical exposure. However, the real concern lies in the long-term, chronic exposure to low doses of potentially harmful substances, in combination with all the other ingredients we use on a daily basis.
Conducting long-term studies on chemical safety is challenging for several reasons:
Time and cost constraints
Ethical considerations limiting human trials
Difficulty in isolating the effects of specific chemicals in real-world scenarios
The ever-changing landscape of chemical use in consumer products
As a result, we often lack comprehensive data on the long-term safety of many ingredients, especially when considering their use in combination with other chemicals.
The Human Experiment
In many ways, our current approach to chemical safety could be viewed as a large-scale, uncontrolled experiment on the human population. While it's difficult to draw direct causal links, we cannot ignore some concerning health trends:
Cancer rates have been steadily increasing, with an estimated 40% of people in the US expected to develop cancer in their lifetime.
Infertility affects about 12% of women aged 15-44 in the US, a number that has been rising.
Autoimmune diseases are becoming more prevalent, with some estimates suggesting a 3-9% annual increase in incidence.
While these trends cannot be attributed solely to chemical exposures, they raise important questions about the cumulative impact of our chemical-laden environment. It is important to be cautious about all the possible ingredients, factors and exposures that can contribute to these health trends.
Conclusion: A Call for a Precautionary Approach On "The Dose Makes The Poison"
The statement "the dose makes the poison" may have been a useful principle in the past, but it's an oversimplification in our current chemical landscape. It fails to account for the complexity of modern chemical exposures, including:
The vast number of chemicals in use
Limited regulatory oversight
Cumulative and combinatorial effects
Potential low-dose effects of certain chemicals
Lack of long-term safety data
Corporate influence on regulations
Instead of relying on this outdated principle, we should adopt a more precautionary approach to chemical safety. This could include:
Strengthening regulatory oversight of cosmetics and household products
Requiring more comprehensive safety testing, including long-term and combinatorial effects
Adopting the "precautionary principle" used in the EU, where substances are prohibited until proven safe
Increasing transparency in ingredient labeling, specifically "fragrance"
Promoting consumer education about potential chemical risks
By moving beyond the simplistic "dose makes the poison" mentality, we can work towards a safer, more informed approach to the chemicals in our daily lives.
This doesn't mean we need to fear all chemicals or products, but rather that we should approach chemical safety with the nuance and caution it deserves in our complex, modern world.
Comments