This excerpt raised two interesting points that I thought were worth investigating. Sandra Steingraber, the author, is a pregnant woman questioning some of the local organic toxins prevalent in the environment of her hometown. She wonders why pregnancy books answer various health questions (yet do not touch on whether or not consuming small amounts of alcohol are detrimental to a fetus's health) with the statement, "in ignorance, abstain."
She discusses how part of the problem is that our knowledge of chemical effects on the brain is very limited; she claims this is largely due to the fact that animal testing is limited at best. This raises an interesting question: Should we be allowed to test the effects that harmful chemicals and toxins can have on the brain on animals if it is to better protect a fetus's development and growth?
This is a complicated, multi-faceted, and controversial issue at best. On one hand, testing on animals would provide very useful information regarding fetus health and development; women could learn how to better avoid harmful chemicals that may hinder the growth and brain development of their babies. Yet it would be very cruel and harmful to these animals that would be forced to undergo these tests and experiments. What alternatives are there to testing these neurotoxins on animals? How else will we know what their effects on the body will be?
It's been proven that testing on animals doesn't always provide accurate information on how a medication or a chemical will react in a human; it's difficult to find an animal accurately mimicking biological processes found in humans. This fact in itself is reason enough not to test on animals altogether; if it's not completely accurate, what good is it? I think that more needs to be invested in being able to use computers to study the effects certain toxins will have on the human body. Granted this would cost an enormous amount of taxpayer dollars and donations from organizations, but in my personal opinion I would say the good it would bring would far outweigh any negative consequences. I think spending taxpayer dollars in order to spare innocent animals from torture and captivity, and to invest in studying the effects of natural toxins on fetal development is a wise decision.
The second point Steingraber brought up that I felt worth mentioning was the concept that many of these lab studies being conducted on certain chemicals and their effects are largely funded by corporations that use or sell these very chemicals. In the excerpt, she discusses how the studies on lead yielded very harmful evidence, yet the main funder of the studies were a lead-based paint company. Protecting their reputation was of the utmost importance, and so they refused to publish the accurate findings on lead, the consequences of which cannot be measured. Countless people have gotten sick and/or died from exposure to excessive amounts of lead. In modern day, nearly 1 in 20 people has an abnormally high lead content in their blood stream.
The obvious problem here is that these studies are being funded by companies that have a stake in the outcomes; when you bring a biased party into the situation, there is bound to be some amount of manipulation. What's necessary to do in this case is to acquire primary funding from arbitrary parties, such as local government or private investors that do not have a stake in the outcomes of such tests.
Very interesting take on the article, while I was reading it I was somewhat frustrated because the article could have gone very in depth, but seemed to only skim the surface. (This wasn't a fault of the author's merely, my curiosity running amok.)
ReplyDeleteSeveral years ago I took a course on the philosophy of bioethics, and we examined the levels of chemicals present in our food, water and everywhere else. It's rather astounding the amount of poison in the air and soil around us, but a big point was brought to the forefront.
For every chemical in the air or water, why was it put there to begin with? Many of poisons in our world today are by products of industry that pay workers, fund nations, and allow us to prosper as a nation. You run into a catch 22 situation where if you don't withdraw copper from the mines, you deprive hundreds if not thousands of peoples of jobs, and potentially harm the infrastructure of the state/nation. Then again, if you do withdraw copper you run the risk of poisoning future generations and making the land dangerous to live on, negatively impacting one's way of life.
Easily one of the scariest prospects for a future mother is that harm might come to her child even before it's born. Environmental poisons have been linked in study after study, showcasing the powerful effects poisons can have on developing fetuses.
On the issue of testing, it's also difficult to design a test for a chemical that really tests its lasting potential. You can't run a test that lasts 20-30 years, it's not financially feasible and requiring it would slow down the design and use of all chemicals, a massive blow to key industries across the US. I guess I'm just agreeing with you that it's a complicated matter, with no easy solutions.
I read this article as well, and the way it was written, especially from the perspective of an author that was pregnant and had lead paint in her own home, and studied such rights, and analyzed the surrounding issues of environmental rights, and the history of human rights in these matters, was very different then much of the articles i have read in Woman's Lives. I felt as though it was a very raw and true perspective of the realities so much society is tempted to ignore and rely on ignorance to feel "safe" and feel "okay" with how the government handles the health here in America.
ReplyDeleteYour analysis of this article and what you focused on from the article were many things that i did not delve into at all, and it is very refreshing to see the other perspective of how Steingraber brought up animal testing. I briefly mentioned that in my analysis as result of focusing more on the cultural idea that it is okay to ignore issues of these, such as lead paint infecting developing brains, because it is something that one can not physically see until later, and they are internal effects mainly, and that idea of not believing it because one can not see it is so much of the problem.
The government funding these researching companies that make laws and regulations with toxins is very twisted, and I completely agree with your statement that it is wrong for lead paint companies to essentially fund research to "prove" it is safe, because they know the public wont question it, because these messages come from the government, and who wants to waste time researching where their information comes from, as long as they get information about the problem?