Arsenic and old lace

My people are showing up in many places, far away from Silicon Valley.  Of course I am referring to people from India.

Today, it is another. Niranjana Krishnan, who has authored this Aeon essay.

Krishnan has a good argument there: How afraid should we be of the synthetic chemicals that permeate our world?

At one end, we might have people who reflexively are opposed to any synthetic chemical.  At the other end, there are those who are ready to embrace and ingest anything that is unnatural.

Most of us occupy the vast space in between these two ends.  How do we respond to synthetic chemicals, and how should we?

Consider water.  Natural, right?  But, As they say in my part of the old country, "அளவுக்கு மிஞ்சினால் அமிர்தமும் நஞ்சு" (the idea translates to "even the divine nectar can become a poison if one exceeds the limit.)  Even water can become toxic, which is what happened a few years ago to a contestant:

On January 12, 2007, KDND's morning show, the Morning Rave, held an on-air contest entitled Hold Your Wee for a Wii, in which contestants were asked to drink as much water as they could without urinating. The contestant able to hold the most water would win a Wii video game console; at the time, the Nintendo console was a very popular and sought-after item, but was nearly impossible to find in stores in North America. A 28-year-old contestant, Jennifer Strange, died of water intoxication hours after taking part in the contest.

Krishnan refers to "the adage ‘the dose makes the poison’."  An example  that she gives is this:

Take the example of botulinum, the most poisonous substance on Earth. Just 50 grammes of the toxin spread evenly worldwide would kill everyone. But, in very minute amounts, it is safely used for cosmetic purposes in Botox.

Eliminate Botox and the entire entertainment industry collapses!

When it comes to something new, something synthetic, one could always ban it out of an uber-precautionary principle.  But, that does not account for a fundamental fact of life--"risk exists in nearly everything."  Recall that old joke about a mother writing to her son that she and her husband moved residences because they read that most accidents happened near one's home?  Risk surrounds us everywhere.

We therefore need to understand probability: is the chemical exposure high enough for a high probability of adverse effects? We also need to know the risks of using an alternative chemical – or no chemical at all.

It is this risk and probability that tRump does not understand when he talks about most issues, especially when it comes to wind turbines. 

Or consider arsenic.  A natural chemical, right?  Not synthetic.  May I give you a glass of water spiked with only a dash of arsenic? ;)

Ultimately, though risk and uncertainty exist on all sides, people seem to be averse only to certain kinds of risks. And while we should undoubtedly work to reduce harmful chemical exposure and come up with safer alternatives, we also need to realise that our excessive phobia of chemicals, particularly synthetic ones, can often be unwarranted. 

Which is why we have the EPA and the FDA.  My worry is that the tRump administration has been rapidly gutting these agencies, and practically forcing the scientists out.  While we won't return to the bad old days of large-scale arsenic poisoning, the worry is real that synthetic chemicals might be allowed at doses that will be harmful.  This is a real risk that we should all worry about.

When nobody reads the Mueller Report, ... who cares about Azodicarbonamide!

Alexandra Petri, who writes an awesomely funny column at WaPo, has one right after the Mueller presser.  She writes as if she is Mueller talking:

My fellow Americans, it is not Mueller Time. It will never be Mueller Time. I wish you would remove my likeness from your T-shirts and steins. I, Robert Mueller, will not be fired. I quit.
First off, it is obvious that none of you has actually read the report, or you would all sound like Justin Amash. Pete Buttigieg read “Ulysses,” but you will notice how quiet he is on the subject of my report findings.
I guess I should not be surprised that people hate to read so much that they will let folks just go around willy-nilly obstructing justice. Donald Trump’s rise is general proof that people hate to read. I kind of thought that maybe one or two people would want to see if the Wikipedia plot summary matched the book, but no.

And all that is just the beginning!  Hilarious. Laugh is all we can do in these stressful times.

If we don't read books, newspapers, and all that big items, what are the odds that we will read the list of ingredients in the food stuff that we buy?  Like in the bread.  Until today, I had no idea that there is something called Azodicarbonamide.  I have often joked with students that if they see an ingredient that they cannot even spell, they should not even think about buying it leave alone eating it!

In The Guardian's series on toxic items in our lives is where I came across Azodicarbonamide, and more.  It is more about caveat emptor.  (Read that too, in case you missed it or need a refresher.)  This latest is about food. About bread:

Azodicarbonamide has been banned for consumption by the European Union for over a decade.
But despite petitions from several advocacy groups – some dating back decades – the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) still considers these to be Gras or “generally recognized as safe” to eat, though plenty of experts disagree.

Insane!

For years now, I have been buying bread that is locally baked, often at prices that are way higher than the national or regional brands.  Apparently that might be a good strategy.  But, maybe I should check their label too?

But, don't we have the federal government to take care of all these?

“The system for ensuring that ingredients added to food are safe is broken,” said Lisa Lefferts, senior scientist at the consumer advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest. Lefferts, who specializes in food additives, said that once a substance was in the food supply, the FDA rarely took further action, even when there was evidence that it isn’t safe.

Seriously? WTF are the taxes for then?

“In EWG’s view, it is important for companies to start removing chemicals associated with health risks, so that shoppers don’t have to have a chemistry degree in order to decipher food labels,” said Naidenko.

I agree.

If you like such information from The Guardian, you want to contribute a couple of dollars to fund them?

Caveat Emptor

I had some quick learning to do when I transitioned from electrical engineering to graduate studies in topics about which I was fascinated but were all brand new.  Every day I was encountering new phrases that might have been elementary to some but were the metaphorical Greek and Latin to me.  And sometimes they were literally in the Latin.

This was also in the prehistoric days before Google. Before the internet as we understand it today.  Which meant that any time I ran into new phrases, it was darn difficult to figure out what the hell it meant. Sometimes, despite my ultra-self-consciousness and introvertedness, I managed to get myself to faculty's offices and ask them to clarify.

One of the phrases that initially stumped me was caveat emptor.  I chanced upon a faculty searching for a book in the library.  Lowdon Wingo.  I had never come across such a name ever.  He was ancient even back then.  (He will one supercentenarian if he were alive now)  I gathered up all my courage and asked him what caveat emptor meant.

Buyer beware!

That, by itself, gave me a lot to think about the market system.

If the buyer is not carefully looking through the product details, then?  So long, sucker!  Uncle Sam doesn't really care about the human buyer, but is always far more keen on the most important person ever--the corporation!

Economic life in the US has not changed all that much over these years.

Across a span of cosmetics, including makeup, toothpaste and shampoo, to items ranging from household cleaners to fruit juice to cheese, hundreds of potentially harmful ingredients banned in the EU are legally allowed in the US. ...
“Generally, the EU has got it right. In the US we have a strong favouritism towards companies and manufacturers, to the extent that public health and the environment is being harmed. The pendulum has swung in an extreme way and it’s really going to take a general awakening by the public.”

Caveat emptor!

Want an example? "In cosmetics alone, the EU has banned or restricted more than 1,300 chemicals while the US has outlawed or curbed just 11."

Why is it so here in the US?

The clout of powerful industry interests, combined with a regulatory system that demands a high level of proof of harm before any action is taken, has led to the American public being routinely exposed to chemicals that have been rubbed out of the lives of people in countries such as the UK, Germany and France.

I don't  understand such a behavior.  Don't American industry leaders and lobbyists have children and grandchildren that they worry about?  Why would they not want to make sure their little ones will have an awesome future?  Why would they want to condemn those innocent kids to caveat emptor?

I know; that was a rhetorical question.  That was answered well in Thank you for smoking, remember?

Oh well ... so, is there any hope?

“I’m hoping for dramatic changes in our politics but there’s little chance of that,” said Bergstein. “The federal government is barely functioning, so consumers have to realize they have the power to become more vocal and demand change. The awareness is still not there, though.”

Caveat voter!

Tainted mangoes, India, and the FDA

Yes, we have no mangoes that haven’t been tainted

The mango is a standard example in the freshman course that I teach. The fruit’s Latin name is Mangifera, which gives away its origin in the Indian subcontinent because the name comes from south Indian languages — in Tamil, it is pronounced “maanga.”

Accounting for more than half the world’s production, India is the largest producer of mangoes. However, very little of the fruit is exported.

For a while, the export of mangoes to the United States was suspended because our Food and Drug Administration wanted to ensure that the mangoes and their packaging materials would not contain fruit flies and weevils.

Having overcome that barrier with sophisticated irradiation technology, India has resumed exporting mangoes, this time employing cargo ships instead of using air freight — which is expected to halve the retail price of Mangifera indica.

I was excited about this, because I missed the succulent and fantastically tasty varieties of mangoes that are available in India.

After arriving in Chennai, in my initial excitement of seeing hundreds of mangoes, I quickly dismissed my 11-year-old niece’s warning that some of the fruits might have been treated with chemicals that are harmful to humans. However, it turns out that my niece had the correct information after all.

Last week, most national newspapers, including The Hindu, reported the destruction of mangoes by government authorities in Chennai because chemicals had been used to ripen ones that had been harvested prematurely, thereby triggering their golden color. The chemicals included calcium carbide, arsenic and phosphorus.

To say that I am shocked is an understatement. Arsenic to improve the appearance and marketability of fruits that humans consume?

My parents were nonchalant about the news. “This happens every year,” was their comment.

I am even more appalled that such destruction of mangoes — because of illegal chemical usage — is an annual affair. I can only think that the manipulators are heartless sociopaths who need to be institutionalized for the rest of their lives.

Yes, India has laws and regulations in its books — from the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to the Insecticide Act. But as a resource-starved developing country, India does not have sufficient enforcement mechanisms that we take for granted in America. I assume that the 7,500 kilograms of mangoes that were destroyed represent a much larger amount of fruit treated with these illegal chemicals.

However, the story of Indian mangoes is not unique.

As countries compete in the global market, a few producers succumb to the temptation for quick profits through various shortcuts. I bet many of us still remember the tragic experiences with tainted dog food and toothpaste from China, among other horror stories associated with imports from that country.

All it takes is a few unscrupulous producers to spoil the reputation for an entire industry, and the country as a whole. Sometimes, it is not the intentional acts but slippages in production processes that cause immense problems for consumers, as was the case with E. coli infected spinach or beef in the United States.

Thus, I am now even more appreciative of our regulatory agencies such as the FDA. Thanks to them, we rarely think twice about the fruits we buy in grocery stores, or even the anti-allergy pills we stock up on in order to be able to deal with an atmosphere that is full of grass seed pollen.

I am now convinced about the importance of strengthening the FDA, which has been systematically weakened over the years. We ought to recognize the importance of the FDA as a prime consumer protection agency and correspondingly increase the resources allocated for its various functions.

Given the extensive and ever-­increasing level of importation of various food and drug items from all around the world, I urge our elected officials to explore ways for the Food and Drug Administration to inspect major production facilities outside the United States, too, to ensure the safety and well-being of Americans.

Such a structure could have an added benefit. Our consumer safety standards would then quickly spread to other countries, and even kids such as my niece will be able to enjoy the juicy mangoes that I did when I was young.

For The Register-Guard
Appeared in print: Monday, Jul 20, 2009