Toxic chemicals: do you know what’s on your sofa?

Well said Kevin. I was thinking along very similar lines, but my desire to post was interrupted by a nice lady who brought me a plate full of proteins, fats, starches and sugars for my tea. Having now washed that down with a 4.5 w/o solution of ethanol in hydrogen dioxide, I can return to this post.

I trust W?C’s resident biochemist will be along in a bit 😀

Just to provide a possible interesting historical anecdote, here’s the latest History Buffs video:

youtube.com/watch?v=jTgmCf82s3U

From it, I learnt that, in the 1840’s, some of the very first food cans were sealed with lead based solder. So that then exposed members of Franklin’s expedition to the risks of lead poisoning, in addition to everything else that they had to contend with.

I guess we are all picking up on the observation that an article about toxic or potentially toxic chemicals seeks to use “chemicals” as shorthand for “potentially toxic chemicals”.

Whilst I think that is poor copy writing, the article still raises a valid question for discussion.

By referencing the EU’s AskREACH initiative, it also shows yet another example of the EU actually working to help consumers live better informed and healthier/safer lives.

I’d have thought we need the regulators to control labelling, access and exposure to toxic chemicals. Surely we should not leave that up to individuals to discover that “products contain certain chemicals at a level that could be harmful to human health and the environment” by using an app (if, of course, they are fortunate enough to have a smart phone).

I may have misunderstood the EU’s AskREACH “initiative” (I hope so) but it seems to suggest that such products are routinely made available to us that are not properly labelled and contain dangerous levels of particular nasty chemicals. The EU should try to make sure that does not happen in the first place, or that such products are only available to authorised users

Malcolm, I think AskREACH is intended to supplement but not replace existing controls and regulations.

For example, we’ve recently seen that some (but not all) toy slimes may contain boric acid and that some even came with more boric acid that should have been allowed under existing safety limits.

That said, I looked into this by visiting various toy shops. I found that, as currently packaged, there seems to be little to distinguish between those three categories of product.

So, at least for that example, there is scope to know whether or not a particular product:

a) should not contain boric acid (other than perhaps in “trace quantities”, i.e. less than some specific de minimis limit), or

b) contains arguable safe quantities of boric acid (i.e. up to a specified level, that would need to be less than generally agreed safety limits), or

c) may contain uncontrolled quantities of boric acid.

I’m sure some consumers would like to only choose option (a) but some might also be content with option (b).

If, as a slime making ingredient, you currently buy eyewash that contains dilute boric acid, see

optrex.co.uk/optrex-range/eye-wash/optrex-multi-action-eye-wash/optrex-multi-action-eye-wash/

wired.co.uk/article/what-is-inside

you’ll know that it contains boric acid and also that it certainly makes great slime. However, it would be nice to see a more explicit (i.e. quantified) set of ingredients.

The slime that was over the limit was illegal, and I doubt the ingredients would be accurately shown on an app – even if the illegal product was listed. I think the way to deal with such products is to heavily penalise the seller – a job for the authorities like Trading Standards.

I do question how the layman is supposed to evaluate the acceptability of the component materials and their concentrations in a product. I suggest it is a job for experts to decide and regulate.

Malcolm, I think the point about providing information to consumers – including laymen like you and I – is that we may beg to differ with “experts” (however appointed) and, in a free society, exercise more stringent choices.

For example, we might choose not to buy or use Indesit dryers, even though they should meet relevant IEC standards, as formulated by “experts”.

In general, the problem with emerging safety advice is that it is usually easy to discount some products as obviously dangerous (e.g. lead paint in toys) but the dangers of some other products can take decades to become revealed or acknowledged. E-cigarettes provide an example of something fairly new that may or may not actually be quite safe. Similarly, some are concerned about the r.f. fields generated by mobile phones, even though authorities such as the HPA / PHE / NHS are content that these do not pose any significant health risks.

Many regulatory requirements, tests, marks, certification can be fabricated by a delinquent manufacturer or supplier. That is why we need to properly police the market.

What action – financial penalties for example – were imposed on those selling the dangerous non-compliant slime? Probably none, just remove the product from sale. Too late; many people would already have bought it and exposed their children to danger.

The distributor in the EU has the responsibility in law to ensure that what they sell meets all EU regulations. If they fail in that responsibility they should be heavily penalised to ensure repeating the offence is financially not worthwhile. Illegal two pin plugs is but another example.

Phil, if that is true, it provides a good example of “be careful what you wish for”.

Improving fire safety is a good idea, but only so long as it can be done without increasing risks in other areas.