“The EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) admits that there are 248,000 chemicals on the market, and a person can be exposed to around 32,000.” In this way, Nicolás Olea, researcher and professor at the University of Granada, one of the scientists who participated yesterday in the presentation of the Toxic-Free Future Declaration manifesto, through which more than 70 professional experts from the field of science and Health asks administrations for urgent action to stop the “alarming exposure to toxic substances derived from plastic and other everyday products.”
The manifesto, promoted by the Rezero foundation, calls for the implementation of legal measures in the face of the increase in exposure to a great diversity of compounds and chemical substances, present in everyday products, such as packaging, kitchen utensils, textiles, plastics or articles cleaning and hygiene, among others.
In this sense, the manifesto recalls that there are multiple scientific investigations and epidemiological studies that have detected the presence of toxic substances in the body of "practically the entire population" and that continuous exposure causes adverse health effects, especially in the case of Endocrine disruptors are associated with reproductive problems, neurodevelopment, diabetes and various types of cancer.
“What is needed is that, with the information we have, we take action because repeating the same publications for the umpteenth time is wasting money,” Olea added.
Among the products that are in the spotlight are food packaging, household items - such as non-stick pans -, hygiene and cleaning products, toys or vehicles. These are elements that incorporate chemical substances such as bisphenol A (BFA), phthalates or perfluorinated substances (PFAS) and their derivatives and which, as they pointed out, can take up to 50 years to disappear because, once they have entered the body “we do not know how to eliminate them.”
Olea referred to how some of these products are withdrawn from the market many years after their negative effects have been demonstrated and, however, are later replaced by "regrettable" alternatives, from the same families ("they are their cousins").
And as an example of this delay in being removed, he cited bisphenol A, used as an interior coating in canned tuna. Its negative effects were demonstrated, he said, in 1995, but it has not been removed from the market in the case of these cans until March 2024. "It took 29 years!" "It is the example of this failure, the delay in withdrawing from the market a product that has toxic estrogenic chemical compounds," he stressed.
He also spoke about the little information that the public receives, alluding to how bisphenol A, which has been removed for the same reasons from cash receipts in 2020.
Although the entire population is exposed to these substances, professionals have warned that the population groups most sensitive to exposure to endocrine disruptors are unborn babies - due to intrauterine exposure and the possible fetal origin of the diseases. as an adult-, and women -due to their special sensitivity to hormonal effects-.
The various interventions highlighted how changes in the environment have influenced this increased exposure to toxic substances and endocrine disruptors.
“Boys, girls, women under 23 years of age have literally sucked on them since pregnancy and breastfeeding,” said Olea.
“We insist a lot that children are not small adults: they are more vulnerable to environmental toxicity, because they breathe more quickly, inhale more toxins, ingest more of them per forest area, and their natural barriers are more immature,” said Elena Codina. , head of the environmental health unit at the Sant Joan de Déu Hospital, and member of the Catalan Society of Pediatrics.
"We have normalized the fact that a large amount of toxic substances enter our homes," he said. Codina added that these substances can be "very active in small children", "can affect very sensitive people, pregnant women and in the first years of life" and cause in children, still immature, "a toxic impact that has effects on the future".
"We are talking about a continuous, daily, cumulative exposure. The sum of substances, the cocktail effect, has consequences that we do not know. And they can be transgenerational effects," he added.
Among the health effects derived from this exposure are delayed growth, attention deficit, childhood obesity, diabetes or premature births.
In the case of women, exposure to these substances has been related to the development of diseases such as endometriosis, the appearance of polycystic ovaries, alterations in menstruation or various cancers, including breast or ovarian cancer.
According to Dr. Carme Valls, a specialist in endocrinology and a former member of Parliament, there is evidence that more ovarian cancers are detected within a five-kilometre radius of an incinerator than in the rest of the population, which is related to the dioxin emissions.
Elena Carreras, head of the Obstetrics and Gynecology service, and the Vall d'Hebron Maternal and Fetal Medicine group, also spoke about how these substances pass from the pregnant mother to the fetus, with the result that "the barrier is broken." and the creatures are impregnated with the same toxic substance as the mother.
Professor Olea spoke about bisphenol A, whose estrogenic effects were discovered in 1936), and phthalates, used to make PVC flexible; But he expanded further by talking about perfluorinated substances (PFAS), used in non-stick pans, stain-removing clothing or in packaging applications (the sandwich box). “Europe has banned 17 but there are 12,300 in the catalogue,” he emphasized.
And, as always, the problem is the difficulty in eliminating these substances from the body. “The older you are, the more you have; Men have more of them than women, and women can clear them with pregnancy. With 5 children and 36 months of breastfeeding you are as clean as a whistle,” he said ironically to underline the extent to which they accumulate in the body.
“Yesterday the French Assembly voted for the absolute ban on perfluorinated substances. “When will Catalonia and Spain ban them?” he asked to remember and vindicate the right of countries to take unilateral measures when they are well informed without fear that market unity will be invoked in the opposite direction.
The statement also highlights the risks of the recycling model that has been implemented in recent years.
“When we recycle waste that contains toxic and prohibited compounds, what we do is reintroduce everything into the environment, and we continue to be exposed,” says Ethel Eljarrat, director of the Institute of Environmental Diagnosis and Water Studies (IDAEA-CSIC).
Eljarrat warned of the highly negative repercussions of political agreements to delay the entry into force of measures prohibiting certain substances, once their danger has been confirmed. “This delay is not postponing the solution to the problem for 5 years, but rather delaying the solution for 50 years.”
In this sense, Dr. Ethel Eljarrat has defended that part of the solution when it comes to waste recycling would be to do it by product categories, without mixing them. “Recycle plastic bottles to make plastic bottles, not to make clothes. This would be the right thing to do,” she indicated.
However, the signatories of the Toxic-Free Future Declaration asked to “take action” in matters of public health. “It is not only necessary to do so to protect the health of people and the environment, but also to reduce the costs for the health system associated with the treatment of diseases derived from exposure to toxins, as well as to promote innovation in the field of safe chemical products and improve the competitiveness of European industries”, they defended.
With these objectives on the table, they have demanded a European, state and regional regulatory framework that mainly guarantees the application of the principle of qualitative prevention to avoid the presence of toxic substances in the consumer products that are manufactured.
They also propose a study of all substances present in consumer products and evaluation of the risk of exposure for people, especially in products with a higher risk of exposure such as toys, kitchen utensils and food packaging.
Another demand is that the “cocktail effect” be taken into account, which is its possible accumulation in the body and continued exposure as well as the prohibition of toxic substances.
“There is a lot of evidence and for us the warning is that it is not being done here with the diligence that should be done,” stated Rosa García, director of Rezero.
