The Body Toxic: How the Hazardous Chemistry of Everyday Things Threatens Our Health and Well-being

by Nena Baker

We are running a collective chemical fever that we cannot break. Everyone everywhere now carries a dizzying array of chemical contaminants, the by-products of modern industry and innovation that contribute to a host of developmental deficits and health problems in ways just now being understood. These toxic substances, unknown to our grandparents, accumulate in our fat, bones, blood, and organs as a consequence of womb-to-tomb exposure to industrial substances as common as the products that contain them. Almost everything we encounter—from soap to soup cans and computers to clothing—contributes to a chemical load unique to each of us. Scientists studying the phenomenon refer to it as “chemical body burden,” and in The Body Toxic , the investigative journalist Nena Baker explores the many factors that have given rise to this condition—from manufacturing breakthroughs to policy decisions to political pressure to the demands of popular culture. While chemical advances have helped raise our standard of living, making our lives easier and safer in many ways, there are costs to these conveniences that chemical companies would rather consumers never knew about. Baker draws back the curtain on this untold impact and assesses where we go from here.

Genres: Nonfiction, Health, Chemistry, Environment, Science, Green

288 pages, Hardcover

First published August 5, 2008

Reviews

[Books Ring Mah Bell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Honestly, this book is worthy of 5 stars, I give it 4 only because it did not tell me anything I was not already somewhat aware of. Okay, that’s not 100% correct; there are great resources listed and I learned about phthalate/paraben free health and beauty items, which I am switching to STAT. (Avalon and Alba Organics and Dr. Hauschka make-up.) This would be a great “starter” book for someone who is interested in the chemical stew in which we live.

There are things happening to our physical bodies, our brains, our children’s bodies and brains. Things that are not good. Increased levels of autism, ADD, breast and prostate cancers, infertility, diabetes, birth defects… a host of endocrine and reproductive problems that are telling us to PAY ATTENTION to our environment and to what we put in and on our bodies.

The chemicals in the products we use and surround ourselves with add up inside of us. This is called our “body burden”. Some chemicals pass through without leaving a trace, others (like PBDE’s from electronics) actually build up in us, hanging out in fatty tissue.

“Bah! Chemicals,” you say. “I don’t drink pesticides! I don’t bathe in acid! I’m not worried about chemicals!”
You should be. You are surrounded. Think flame-retardant fabrics, teflon coatings in pans, plastic food storage containers, lotions and make-up. This is why I have this book under women's interest and mom stuff… WAKE UP, Ladies! Women (and men) cover themselves several times a day in shampoos, lotions, cleansers and creams that are loaded with parabens and phthalates. Phthalates are very common in baby lotions and shampoos and affect the endocrine and reproductive systems, which are still developing in small infants. (Hmmm. Why is there so much infertility? Decreased sperm count and quality are directly related to phthalate exposure.) Don’t see phthalates on the label? Look for DEP, DEHP and DBP. Or, simply look for “fragrance” - the manufacturers don’t have to put phthalates on the label.

“No,” you say, “there are regulatory agencies for that. The government would never allow us to get poisoned by everyday items!”

HA HAH HAHA HAHA HA HA! Please, send me some of your ignorant bliss. Bisphenol A, a nasty little chemical, was removed from baby bottles only a few years ago!

While it is very difficult to eliminate every source of toxic chemicals, we can reduce the burden to our bodies. Get educated. Get this book.

[Mira · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is one of the few books I want everyone to read - in part because I believe that the more people become interested in the potential dangers of endocrine disruptors, the more non-industry-funded research will be done to tell us how concerned we really need to be (my preliminary guess is "deeply, deeply concerned" but I would love to be proven wrong).

Baker does an excellent job explaining many environmental and health concerns associated with common chemicals, such as phthalates and flame-retardants. She also gives a devastating overview of how, from a legal standpoint, all of this is allowed to continue without much public outcry. And, perhaps most importantly, she gives sound advice about what people can do to learn more and to protect themselves.

I now have an inkling of what it would have been like to read Silent Spring when it first came out. It is not that I suspect this book will embraced in the same way, it is that it lays bare the same dangers, but in vastly more immediate and prevalent forms.

[Sophia · Rating 5 out of 5]

In 2005, I tried to find information about the topics covered in this book on my own and found it very challenging. Nena Baker does a great job of thoroughly covering atrazine, phthalates, PBDEs, BPA, and perflourinated chemicals in one fairly quick 230-page read. I appreciate her focus on policy change and details about the failures of our 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act and how the EU is now regulating chemicals. I also love the great information shared in the appendices. The chapter on atrazine was a little slow for me, but the rest of the book really caught my interest. Anyone who is concerned about our increasing body burden and the effect of these chemicals on us, our children, and the environment should read this book. It is one of the most thorough on the subject.

[sleeps9hours · Rating 3 out of 5]

Scary and infuriating to read, but important info. Focuses on endocrine disruptors.

My notes:
p. 83 If I have a religion it is faith in science and academia. I believe that a few of us are given a gift. Trained to develop our intellect, to accumulate knowledge. With this gift, we have the responsibility to deliver truth. Our citizenship demands that we use this gift to teach and train others in our methodology and to pursue truth. Our stewardship demands that when given the opportunity, we use that knowledge to the benefit of the environment…I take my responsibility and my stewardship seriously. So serious that it exceeds sympathy for a former colleague who has forgotten these responsibilities. Forgotten where he came from, lost sight of where he is going. I will deliver the truth. It is my responsibility as a scientist, as a teacher and as a citizen. (Tyrone Hayes, professor of integrative biology at UCBerkeley, studies atrazine, the most heavily used agricultural weed killer in the US, causes hermaphroditic frogs).

p. 104 The Washington Toxics Coalition released a report in February 2008 showing that playthings the group purchased from Toys R Us, Wal-Mart, and Target contained phthlates at levels ranging from 28% to 47.5%.

p. 105 Baby-care products contain a variety of phthalates that are absorbed through the skin. Infants under the age of 8 months, who are the most vulnerable to potential adverse effects because of their still-developing endocrine and reproductive systems, are the most highly exposed.

p. 135 Fundamentally, the argument over Deca in Washington State and every jurisdiction weighing new rules is not about the strengths or shortcomings of particular risk assessments. Instead, it turns on whether policy makers accept the premise that risk assessment methods, based on conventional epidemiology and toxicology that underestimate the environmental links to certain diseases, should continue to be the benchmark for determining what is best for human health and the environment. Comparing, say, the recommendations of the Washington plan to phase out Deca with a course of more study and no further risk reductions makes the differences between precautionary and risk-based approaches starkly apparent. While the former errs on the side of protecting human health and the environment when viable alternatives are available, the latter leans toward continued use of a potentially toxic substance in the absence of definitive proof of harm.
As we’ve seen, risk-based approaches—in contrast to a better-safe-than-sorry approach now embraced in the EU—yield standards that put business interests ahead of public health. Federal agencies such as the EPA are hamstrung by a toothless Toxic Substances Control Act that allows the use of tens of thousands of chemicals without knowledge of their toxicity. So state and local jurisdictions are acting on their own to restrict questionable substances.

p. 136 Scientific discoveries that some contaminants alter gene behavior at extremely low doses and that high-dose experiments do not predict low-dose effects have rendered traditional risk assessments woefully inadequate tools for prescribing public policy. These discoveries, considered far out when first discussed a decade ago, are now part of the scientific mainstream. Yet such points are difficult to get across to lawmakers and the public—especially when the EPA is silent and the industry offers soothing reassurances that substances such as Deca are as threatening as blue sky on a summer’s day.
While the bromine industry insists that efforts to place restrictions on Deca are unfairly based on what is not known—an argument that confuses scientific uncertainty with no evidence of harm—manufacturers and retailers are already abandoning Deca. Companies such as Dell, IKEA, Apple, Sony, and Hewlett-Packard have for years demonstrated their ability to meet fire safety standards without the use of Deca, and many others are following their lead. As of July 1, 2006, The EU restricted the use of PBDEs and five other toxic substances in electronics under the RoHS Directive, which restricts the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. Deca was banned as of July 1, 2008.

p. 195 REACH legislation in the EU, effective in June 2007, requires the registration of thirty thousand substances produced or imported in volumes over 1 metric ton (2,240 pounds) with a new Helsinki-based European Chemicals Agency. The most hazardous of these chemicals, an estimated fifteen hundred, could be banned or restricted. Chemicals of highest concern or those used in the greatest volume must be registered first, and all chemicals are to be registered by the time REACH has been in effect for eleven years. Under REACH, the EU’s industrial sectors are expected to vault ahead of the US in developing safer, cleaner technologies and products, turning the US from a leader into a laggard. And where human and environmental health are concerned, EU regulators now have a lever with which to extract crucial health and safety information from chemical manufacturers (no data, in effect, means no registration and no access to the market). Meanwhile, the US, operating under the outmoded and ineffectual Toxic Substances Control Act, has no practical regulatory system for assessing the hazards of chemicals and controlling those of greatest concern.
To protect the competitiveness of U.S. companies, we must now overhaul our own laws on toxic chemicals.

p. 197 Since inception of TSCA (early 70s), the EPA has used its authority to require testing for fewer than 200 of 62,000 chemicals. What went wrong? There was never much political will behind toxics legislation.

p. 199 What we need is a more comprehensive approach that gets us away from dealing with the chemical problem du jour. We simply cannot do this one chemical at a time. It’s a Faustian bargain: Industry likes the TSCA because they don’t have to do anything, and the EPA likes it because they don’t have the resources to do anything else. The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, which administers the TSCA, operates with only 350 people and, like the rest of the EPA, and ever-shrinking budget under the Bush administration.

p. 201 REACH erases the artificial distinction between “old” and “new” chemicals and requires the registration of all chemicals produced or imported in volumes exceeding one metric ton. Chemical manufacturers and importers must share health and safety information with companies that use the substances in the production of consumer products, as well as with the public. And a few thousand of the most hazardous chemicals will require formal authorization, which is expected to provide a strong incentive to substitute safer alternatives.
Equally significant, REACH sidesteps the slippery slope of risk-benefit balancing, which doomed the EPA’s ban on asbestos. Substances considered to be very persistent and those that accumulate up the food chain are not allowed if substitutes are available. If a substitute cannot be immediately identified, chemical makers and importers will be required to come up with a plan to find one.

p. 203 Problems associated with society’s current approach to chemical design, use and management represent one of the major challenges of the 21st century, and reorienting this approach will require a long-term commitment to the development of a modern, comprehensive chemicals policy.

p. 204 We need government support for green chemistry, also know as clean chemistry or environmentally benign chemistry. Once that happens, it will drive the research and development of greener products. Green chemistry, which promotes pollution prevention at the molecular level by designing benign alternatives to hazardous chemicals and processes, was introduced in the 1990s by two brilliant young U.S. chemists, John Warner and Paul Anastas. In their book “Green Chemistry: Theory and Practice”, they write, “Much like the Hippocratic procedures and protocols, a synthetic chemical methodology, to be truly elegant, must ‘first, do no harm.’” This means chemists must consider the ultimate effect on human health and the environment when designing new substances. And it is quite a challenge for chemists, most of whom were not required to study toxicology in their doctoral programs.

What to do?

Atrazine: filter tap water with a carbon-based water filter, check product label (EPA says <3 parts per billion okay, but Dr. Tyrone Hayes at UCBerkeley shows it causes gonadal abnormalities in frogs at concentrations that are 30 times lower than that) . To search for water quality reports from your area, go the the EPA’s Office of Water at www.epa.gov/water. Takes shoes off at the door. Vacuum, mop, and dust all surfaces weekly.

Phthalates (DBP, DEP, DEHP, “fragrance”): are in personal care products, detergents, and soaps, and in the things made from polyvinyl chloride plastic. Also in vinyl flooring, adhesives, building materials, plastic bags, food packaging, garden hoses, inflatable recreational toys, blood-storage bags, and intravenous medical tubing. They are metabolized and excreted quickly from the body, but we experience new exposures many times each day. Don’t use plastic in the microwave. Stay away from PVC plastic in toys, shower curtains, floor coverings, and building materials. There are alternatives: Ethylene vinyl acetate, or EVA, which does not require a plastic softener, is being used by some companies as a replacement for soft PVC. Paints and other hobby materials may contain phthalates as solvents, so use in a well-ventilated area. Don’t use air fresheners.

Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs): flame retardants, and a chemical cousin to long-banned PCBs. Added to upholstered furniture, mattresses, carpet padding, vehicle upholstery, and electronics (out of foam products sold in 2005 or later). People are exposed in homes, vehicles, and offices. Secondary sources are foods, primarily meat, dairy, fish, and eggs. Avoid crumbling old foam from carpet padding, old mattress pads, and stuffed furniture. For a list of PBDE-free products, see EWG’s list at www.ewg.org/pbdefree.

Bisphenol A (BPA): Common source are canned foods lined with an epoxy resin. Look out for the number 7 stamp on plastics. Make sure stainless steel bottles aren’t lined with BPA-containing resin. Ask your dentist about the sealants and composites he or she uses.

Perfluorinated chemicals: resist grease, water, and stains. We are exposed through contaminated water, food, and air. Avoid nonstick coatings, decline optional treatments for stain and dirt resistance on clothing, shoes, and furniture. Ask retailers to help you find items that have not been pretreated with chemicals. Avoid fast-food packaging and microwave popcorn bags.

Environmental and public-health groups to donate to and learn from: EWG and NRDC, Making our milk safe (MOMS)—founded in 2005 by four nursing mothers, found at www.safemilk.org (p. 227), Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides at www.pesticide.org, Physicians for Social Responsibility at www.psr.org, Science and Environmental Health Network encourages the practice of science in the public interest and advocates for the precautionary principle at www.sehn.org, Sightline Institute, formerly Northwest Environment Watch, is a regional sustainability think tank with a special interest in toxics, at www.sightline.org.

Government agencies:
CDC biomonitoring reports at www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring.
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) at www.niehs.nih.gov
Within NIEHS is the National Toxicology Program, within which is the Center for Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction. Their report on BPA is at www.cerhr.niehs.nih.gov.
Just under way is the National Children’s Study, details at www.nationalchildrensstudy.gov.

[Amy · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author is an "investigative journalist," who tends to sensationalize. She gets into a lot of "he said this and then she said this" stories...most of them designed to illustrate how evil corporations are, how inept government is, and how maverick-cool renegade scientists are. BUT, her point was still well made. The US has not and is not erring on the side of public safety in its policy-making and enforcement. This is very troublesome. We await full-blown proof that a toxin is harmful before we take action, and it's still an uphill battle. I took several notes of change in my life, including re-examining my cosmetics choices based on ingredients, upping my vigilance in watching what I expose my daughter to, filtering my tap water, etc.

[Gail Park · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very scary...it's disheartening to be told that no matter how hard you try to eat right, exercise, avoid toxins like tobacco, drugs, your body is still full of toxic chemicals that now permeate our environment. I agree, that if you read the epilogue first, it embues you with some hope that our actions can make a difference. No more plastics!!! No more microwaved popcorn! More diligent dusting and vacuuming (my husband will love that). This is a must read for all, but especially for moms--I have copied the epilogue and appendix to send to my daughters.

[Michelle · Rating 3 out of 5]

The most useful parts of Baker's book are the appendices, where she summarizes the reasons behind wariness of atrazine, phthalates, PBDEs, Bisphenol A and Perflorinates. Her research into why each of these chemical types are hazardous and what little has been done to protect Americans and our environment from manufacturers who use governmental influence and free-market capitalism over consumer health is the meat of this book: I admit I found this part tiresome, as she writes with a pretty clear bias. However, the dangers are real (if not acknowledged in the USA) and there are specific things you, as a consumer, can do or not do to be aware of and limit exposure hazards.

Also in the appendices are lists of organizations who are concerned and active in the fight to alert consumers to dangers of these chemicals and copious notes.

Recommended for everyone.

[Gina · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was impressed with this book. At first glance, it might appear to be just another lifestyle guide-type book that tries to scare people into changing their behavior; however, while it does include a chapter at the end with useful tips on minimizing exposure, it is more about our broken regulatory system and the difficulty true scientists confront when their research presents a threat to business interests. Caveat emptor will not work here. The fact that we cannot avoid these relatively-new and pervasive chemicals (some of them are literally raining down on us) makes the author's message even more powerful.

It is not all doomsday though; the new European model for chemical regulation and the emerging field of "green chemistry" present opportunities for innovation, as well as the danger that the U.S. will, once again, fall behind the rest of the developed world because of our reluctance to regulate industry.

Also, it is quite readable for a book of this nature, without dumbing down the subject matter in an annoying way. There is just enough discussion of the science to make me miss those chemistry courses I took in college, but not so much as to lose the non-scientist reader.

Overall, the book was obviously very well researched, is interesting and, while scary, did not leave me with the feeling that there is no hope.

Definitely worth reading.

[Shelly · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm scared. I feel like I never want to buy anything ever again. While I'm at it, I'll try to stop eating and breathing and doing all the other mundane things I do every day that invite toxins into my body.



I don't mean to imply that Baker was inciting people to panic or that her writing was unduly alarmist. She was just absolutely thorough and detailed. She pulled no punches and airbrushed nothing. In the end, the picture was devastatingly clear.

Ok, so I can't completely remove myself from modern society. What *can* I do? Stop buying microwave popcorn, that's a start. And my non-stick cookware has been shoved aside in favor of some shiny new stainless steel. But it would be absolutely fabulous if the government could be convinced that petrochemical companies who create possible toxins should not be allowed to flood the environment with their chemicals without first proving that they are not harmful.

[Angelique · Rating 4 out of 5]

I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in the diseases/health afflictions of our times and what scientists/doctors will come to realize sometime in the future as to what is causing them. Be in the know, read this book - it's really an eye-opener. Ms. Baker, an Oregon journalist decides to study in-depth some typical chemicals that we are exposed to on a daily basis. Atrazine, an herbicide that has caused frogs to be hermaphroditic with exposure is the one that sticks out most in my mind. Then there are the brominated flame retardants found in most all appliances, furniture, carpets, and often in children's clothing. Many of these chemicals are endocrine disruptors - they interfer with the delicate balance of our hormones. Hormones such as testosterone - imperative for the development of the male fetus, and the sperm quality of men (to name just a few functions) - as well as insulin, important for balancing the glucose in our system.

[Tracy · Rating 2 out of 5]

Because I have read books about the chemical industry vs. the EPA and how the general consumer fits into the equation before, there was not a whole lot of new information here. The book focuses on 7 major chemical types, and the disconnect between the honest work of scientists and what the chemical manufacturers are often not willing to acknowledge, at least in the United States. The information that will likely stay with me the longest is about the affect of atrazine on male frogs. At the end of the book, the author gives a list of things she has done in light of the knowledge presented in the book. I recommend that anyone interested in reading this book take a look at that list first. If you have already made those choices in your own life, or have a decent understanding of why someone would want to do so, I'd reconsider taking the time to read this book.

[Kristi · Rating 2 out of 5]

I will start out that I thought the information from this book was a must read for everyone. However, the Epilogue and Appendix 1 gave me 98% of it in a freiendly Reader's Digest edition. I honestly had to force myself continue reading after the first chapter. It does get much better after that, but I found myself yawning and getting lost in parts. It is probably my ignorance in this area, but I think the author missed her audience a little bit. It would have like to see more information about where to get toxic free products as well as more information about what I can do to help. The good news is that this book has opened my eyes to questioning my purchases and looking into 'green chemistry'.

[Anne · Rating 4 out of 5]

Following the Longevity Project book with this one, as the careful, responsible types might do. Probably have accumulated so many toxins that the barn door is long off the hinges.
I must be really nuts to read this while trying to replace my deck with a plastic product-- although treated wood is no health-picnic either-- Onwards anyway.
Now I've finished, I'm more positive. I learned some alternatives. Throwing out the plastic food containers I haven't used in a while. Still doing my deck. Considering a water filter for Atrazine. Probably need to change rugs, curtains and upholstery. Now I wonder, when they did the studies to show the unhealthiness of sitting, what were the test subjects sitting on?

[Shelby · Rating 1 out of 5]

I had to read this book for my Environmental Health class at school, and I have to say that I was 1) bored by the statistics that the author filled it with and 2) didn't like the way the author made me feel like we're doomed.

It was basically an entire book devoted to the ills of the American government and how it doesn't measure up to the European Union. I really tired quickly of her scare tactics.

I wouldn't recomment this book to anyone. I'm also sorry that I was forced to read it for class.

[Brenda · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you've wondered why those clear, plastic Nalgene bottles are going out of style, this book will explain it. I appreciated the information on Atrazine since I have recently moved next to a cornfield and wondered about the affect of pesticides and herbicide on my kids. The book could seem a bit alarmist, but it appears to be very thorough. To keep from being overwhelmed, however, I would recommend starting with the Epilogue (page 212)--especially if you haven't heard about any of these chemicals before.

[Ann · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author is an investigative journalist and this book, while well researched tends to be a bit sensationalist and doomsday. It is important information, however. We are all carrying a body burden of chemicals that humans did not evolve to handle. If you find the contents of the book too depressing and scary, skip to the first appendix, which outlines each of the chemicals reviewed in the text, with a brief description of what it does, how it affects humans, and how you can avoid/minimize your exposure.

[Jennifer · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great book - very similar to Fast Food Nation in that it covers a wide topic with broad brush strokes, but somehow manages to go deep into a few specific areas of chemical toxins (they're everywhere, man!) and give some very practical suggestions for what the average man or woman can do to reduce his/her exposure. Yikers!!!

[Heidi · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a good book. Well-written and easy to follow. I was hoping for some more new info., but it probably is new info. for most people, since most people don't spend their time studying things like this. A little bit more political and a lot less biological than the title suggests, but still a good read.

[Jaime · Rating 1 out of 5]

I love hearing that the water-repellant fabrics I work with have chemicals that may be carcinogenic. Great, lol.
Couldn't finish this book. I already have enough to worry about and be paranoid about than adding all the chemicals this book discusses. This book was a stress-creater, so I stopped reading it.

[Alina · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was an extraordinarily well-researched book. Each chapter read like a mini journalistic investigation into the history, science, cultural context, and politics of each toxin.
Unfortunately, I wanted a little more about how it actually affects the consumer, me, of course, being a consumer of these toxins. What's it actually going to do to me? What can I do to avoid it?

[L · Rating 1 out of 5]

Unless you plan on moving off the grid into a commune, don't waste your time scaring yourself to death reading this book. The one-star rating is not for the author's writing ability, but for the content itself. There are "toxic" chemicals all around us and they are virtually impossible to avoid. Make good choices when you can, but really.

[Whittney · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is the second time I've read this book. Full of good info (although I have to say some parts I found a little boring). I highly recommend for anyone who hasn't read or heard about the daily chemicals we are exposed to and how to avoid them.

[Katie · Rating 5 out of 5]

An accessible and engaging introduction to some of the most toxic- and most common chemicals in our homes. The author provides a frightening glimps into the non-science behind the politics of the chemical industry. I'd recommend it to anyone.

[Robyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well, I'll never eat microwave popcorn again!

[Alicia · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think the title says it all! This book only covers some of the "bigger" issues, but definitely worth a peek. I think everyone should read at least one book on this subject.

[mia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Yep. It's just as toxic as i thought it was...

[Kate Burke]

Very good but alarming book. I took most (but not all) of what she said to heart. This book could make the sane person insane. It is an informative book though and I recommend it.

[Kevin]

saw this book in the library. I have not read it yet. It looks interesting but totally alarmist. I will have to see.

[KaTe · Rating 3 out of 5]

rec. by non-toxic kids blog

[Liz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Portland journalist, Nena Baker's nonfiction account of the chemical industry's unbridled, rampant poisoning of our bodies is alarming, to say the least.