Joshua Zaffos

“Boy, did your mother do a number on you.”

If you’ve ever heard that, it may be truer than anyone would like to contemplate. A recent study, reported on in The Washington Post by Juliet Eilperin on November 24, links mothers’ exposures to plasticizing chemicals with “less masculine” playtime for their young sons. The chemicals, known as phthalates (pronounced “tha-lates”), are found in just about everything from toys to shampoo to IV bags.

The lead author of the new study, published in the International Journal of Andrology, finds the results stark enough that she advocates for labeling of products containing phthalates; a move that chemical manufacturers and merchandisers are set against. Another study released last week by the Washington Toxics Coalition found that babies typically emerge from the womb having already been exposed to another hormone-disrupting chemical, bisphenol-A, as well as phthalates and mercury.

A year and a half ago, I wrote a feature story, “Our Chemical Romance,” on chemical impacts to human bodies and the environment for the Rocky Mountain Chronicle. The article went on to run in the Colorado Springs Independent (“Chemical Imbalance,” June 12, 2008) and on the indie-media site, AlterNet, where it generated a lot of attention, at least partly, I imagine, because of the editors’ flashy title, “Low Sperm Counts and Deformed Penises: The Chemical Industry Has a Hold on Your Reproductive Future.”

One of the major reasons that chemicals show up in mind- and body-altering concentrations in our bodies has been the poor regulation of such compounds. From my article last year:

I can try to avoid plastic bottles and vinyl shower curtains. I can seek out a computer that doesn’t use PBDEs; a number of companies have voluntarily phased them out. My few consumer actions are roughly equivalent to fending off an infectious disease with a Kleenex.

One reason is that the federal government doesn’t do much to monitor or regulate chemical concentrations in the environment.

Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 1976, the same year I was born. Under the law, manufacturers register commercial chemicals and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency can test the safety of chemicals — produced after 1979 — and regulate their use. Or at least that’s how it’s supposed to work.

From 1979 to 2004, the EPA received more than 32,000 chemical applications, but agency personnel performed some level of review on fewer than one in eight cases. Eight out of every ten applications are approved with no restrictions, often in less than three weeks. The agency has implemented restrictions on only five chemical classes, even though in the Nineties it reported that sixteen thousand compounds warranted concern because of their chemical structure or volume of use.

“TSCA really doesn’t have the teeth to ban chemicals,” says Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst with the Environmental Working Group, a D.C.-based watchdog organization.

The upshot here is that the Obama administration recently announced plans to reform TSCA and to start screening chemicals for hormone disruption.