U.S. Government Makes Sure Products Are Safe, Right?

You grew up assuming U.S. government regulations prevent toxic products from appearing on store shelves.  As the FDA and leading scientists state, this assumption is incorrect.  As you’ve seen in the news recently, for toys, children’s products, pet food, toiletries, seafood and even water, this assumption is incorrect.

Are You Ready to Sue?

Rather than preventing toxic products from entering the market, the U.S. legal system operates by assuming citizens & non-governmental organizations (NGOs) will sue when a product causes harm.  The U.S. legal system assumes lawsuits and the threat of them will keep harmful products off the market.  This presumes citizens are able to prove a product’s direct cause of harm and cover the time & money cost of suing. 

Sometimes It Works

Citizens and non-profits recently tested toys and publicized that they contained lead. With considerable effort on the NGO’s part and growing public awareness, though some manufacturers hesitated they eventually recalled many of their toys and in some cases started testing their other toys proactively.  Publicity and the perceived threat of lawsuit slowly caused some companies to take their products off the market – after they had been on store shelves for years.

But It Fails, In Two Ways

In two ways, the system is failing us.

One – Corporations Lobby Against Laws that Protect Consumers 

Many corporations spend millions of dollars fighting laws that would require they keep off the market products that scientists already know or suspect cause harm.  Recent examples include toys and baby bottles with phthalates as well as toiletries with ingredients known or suspected of causing cancer, mutations or reproductive harm.

Two - You Can’t Sue Successfully if You Can’t Definitively Prove Direct, Typically Acute Harm 

If a product very likely causes harm over years but not immediately, it’s essentially impossible to prove a direct link.   Many toxins accumulate over time. They along with other chemicals gradually lead to disease over many years.  Thus, they are nearly impossible to get off the market given our current legal environment where you need to prove a direct link to harm. Usually lawsuits are successful only when they involve direct acute harm such as injury from a choking hazard or death from an automobile defect for example.

U.S. Laws Not Only Don’t Protect You, They Ensure Toxic Products Will Reach Store Shelves

The philosophy on which our current legal system is based is that suits will remove products from the market after they’ve reached your store shelf and caused harm, not before.  Given the current power of large corporations and the difficulty of proving harm, this ensures that toxic products are on your store shelves.  But you know that from the news you’ve been reading and hearing.   It also ensures manufacturers will continue to add more toxic products to your store shelves.  You’ll have to wait to read and hear the news about what’s the next toxin that an NGO will have time and money to test for in your family’s products.  You’ve learned about lead in lunchboxes and toys, phthalates in toys, bisphenol-A in cans and water bottles, drugs in water.  What’s next?

Did You Assume Manufacturers Test for Toxicity?

U.S. laws do not require manufacturers test a chemical’s or a product’s toxicity or safety before putting it on store shelves.  To get a sense of the scale, there are over 80,000 chemicals registered for use in the U.S. increasing by about 2000 per year. The EPA restricts only five chemicals despite suspecting many thousands of causing harm.  Toxicity data for most ingredients on the market today is essentially non-existent.  Is this different than you assumed?  Is there a better way? 

Can Manufacturers Prove Their Product’s Safety?

Europe is adopting a precautionary principle that requires manufacturers to prove a product is safe (does not contain a chemical known or suspected of causing cancer, mutations or reproductive harm) before releasing it to the market.  Europe’s approach shifts the burden of proof to the manufacturer to prove safety versus U.S.’s approach that places the burden on citizens to prove harm. 

Manufacturers Proving Safety or Citizens Proving Harm, Which Environment Do You Prefer For Your Family?  

But You Live in the U.S….

Given that your country requires citizens to prove a product’s harm, how can you reduce your family’s toxic exposure?  How can you add toxicity and health risk to your buying decision?

Although you cannot eliminate all toxins from your family’s products, you can guarantee that you’ll reduce your family’s exposure to known or suspected toxins. (click to return to What is Your Family’s Safe Level of Exposure to Toxins?  where you can read to the end of the page to see how to get a free Secret Shopping List booklet)

Learn More Before You Become a Member