I originally wrote this and published it on TrialSite News.
Ever wonder why we’re marinating in chemicals most of us can’t pronounce? It’s not because they’ve been scientifically proven to be harmless. It’s that here in the U.S., we ignore something simple: the precautionary principle. You know, the idea that maybe-just maybe-we shouldn’t toss potentially dangerous chemicals into the ecosystem like confetti at a corporate parade. Instead, we follow the “spray now, study later” approach. And while the spraying happens, companies rake in profits. Even when the slow churn of epidemiological studies links chemicals to health risks, the gold-ringed fingers of industry casually press play on their greatest hit: “Correlation isn’t causation.” And what can you say to a catchphrase that catches us all, because it’s true? Once a chemical escapes the lab and joins the wild, correlation rules the roost. So we stay stuck in a chemical version of Groundhog Day-simmering in a toxic stew with frogs switching sexes while we puzzle over our early-onset this-and-that.
Why does this happen in the U.S.? Part of it is philosophical. Our regulatory system tends to prioritize economic growth and innovation over the possibility of deleterious health risks. God forbid we step on the toes of innovation even if it means our own toes falling off in ten years. We don’t just give industry a long leash; we hand them the leash and ask if they’d like a tax break to go with it. The default isn’t “prove this is safe,” it’s “prove this is dangerous,” and by the time that proof limps its way through peer-reviewed papers predictably ending with ‘More research is needed,’ – the mumbled ‘Amen’ of every dusty scientific hymn book- the chemical in question has already made it into your shampoo, eye shadow, couch cushions, food, umbilical cord, the neighborhood’s manicured lawns and dog’s belly. Add in an aggressive dose of lobbying, a revolving door between industry and regulators, and a cultural allergy to the word “ban,” and you’ve got a country where the burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of the poisoned, not the poisoners. And while I’m all about taking personal responsibility for your health, that becomes irrelevant when most of your choices are toxic.
Take phthalates, a class of chemicals used to make plastics flexible and harder to break, found in an array of everyday products. Over the years, they’ve morphed into a grab-bag of health concerns, including hormonal imbalances, reduced sperm quality, fertility problems, developmental and behavioral issues in kids, asthma, early puberty, thyroid disruption, and increased risks of obesity, insulin resistance, and type 2 diabetes. The US banned three phthalates (DEHP, DBP, and BBP) in 2008 in kids’ toys and specific childcare items, but they are still widely used in food packaging and have been shown to leach into foods. In fact, Consumer Report released a 2024 report showing the presence of phthalates in every food item they tested. The American Chemistry Council, the trade association representing US chemical companies (aka: lobbying arm) predictably pushed back on this report, stating that not all phthalates are the same and common ones used in food packaging aren’t shown to be harmful to humans. That may be true, but the problem in the US is that our starting point was releasing them everywhere. It’s like letting a bunch of strangers crash on your couch-some take out the trash, some just eat your oatmeal, but others swap your meds, steal your jewelry and your underwear, and somehow kick your houseplants into puberty.
People often say Europe does a better job applying the precautionary principle. I won’t go full fangirl on that, because there are probably areas where caution seems to take a smoke break-like personal injury. I’ve had that thought ever since I climbed a narrow, crumbling staircase to the top of a European church with aging handrails, no waiver, no warning-just faith and flimsy Mary Janes. If I slipped and tumbled down centuries of stone, it would’ve been my fault. That kind of setup would never fly in the U.S., where we treat lawsuits like text messages.
But when it comes to chemical approvals, Europe tends to hesitate before tossing mystery ingredients into the communal soup.
Take food additives: Potassium bromate, linked in animal studies to cancer, is banned in Europe but still used here to help bread rise and look vampire white. Azodicarbonamide, tied to respiratory issues and cancer risks, is banned there. It’s still used here, especially in processed breads. Titanium dioxide, used to make candy and frosting look brighter, was banned in food in Europe in 2002 due to concerns about genotoxicity. It’s still legal here and still lighting up our Skittles. Europe has banned or labeled certain artificial food dyes because they’re linked to hyperactivity in kids. While those dyes are basically a food group on every American kid’s birthday table, there is a renewed push under the new administration to ban them.
In the world of pesticides: Atrazine, an endocrine disruptor that can literally cause frogs to change sex, was banned in Europe in 2004. Here, we’re still spraying it like misguided care bears on corn, golf courses, and suburbia’s sterile chem-lawns. Paraquat, linked to Parkinson’s disease, was banned in Europe since 2007. Here? Still in use—just wrapped in red tape. Only certified, specially trained applicators can handle it. But it’s out there, soaking American soil, while study after study raises alarm bells over even tiny exposures. Acephate, linked to neurotoxicity, is banned there and still chillin’ on American soil-though in 2024 the EPA proposed to nix all but one use. And then there’s Roundup (glyphosate), the weed killer that keeps on giving…cancer lawsuits. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer labeled it probably carcinogenic in 2015. Billions in U.S. settlements followed. There are also concerns that dogs exposed to Roundup-treated lawns may develop cancer, specifically bladder cancer and lymphomas. (To be fair, Europe’s still fighting over it too, but they seem more embarrassed to sprinkle it around like fairy dust.)
On my podcast, I’ve chatted with researchers diving into chemical exposures and their health impacts. Dr. Jerry Heindel talked about obesogens-everyday chemicals that may mess with your metabolism, fuel weight gain and contribute to the obesity epidemic. Dr. Sherlock Li shared how forever chemicals (PFAS) might interfere with sleep, on top of their already terrifying résumé: cancers, thyroid issues, immune chaos, developmental delays, and so on. Journalist Kristina Marusic unpacked her book A New War on Cancer, showing how many of these chemicals sneak into our lives via everyday products-and possibly our cancer stats, too. And even when we do kick out a bad actor, we fall for the oldest trick in the book: the Unfortunate Replacement. A chemical gets exposed as dangerous, so companies swap it for a slightly different cousin. Not well studied, not necessarily safer, just newer. It’s like dumping your player boyfriend and falling for the hot new guy who promises he’s better. (Spoiler: he’s not. He’s just got a sleeker label.)
So yeah, when Americans ask, “Why am I being exposed to so many chemicals banned in Europe?”: fair question. The answer? We leave the door wide open. No background checks, no questions asked. Come one, come all, just chemicals strolling in like they own the place.
The precautionary principle should’ve been cast in a leading role. Instead, we gave it a walk-on role and told it not to speak. And sure, we can’t be paralyzed by caution, otherwise no one would drive, fly, or use a curling iron. But the problem isn’t too much caution. It’s none. We’re living in a chemical free-for-all. They’re everywhere. That’s why when wellness junkies tell me they’re “toxin-free,” I smile politely. For all the toxins we know about, and the ones quietly loitering in the wings.
And yes, correlation doesn’t equal causation. Just because my phone dies when I walk into a house doesn’t mean it’s haunted. We’ve all blamed the wrong culprit (or been blamed) while the real answer took its sweet time showing up. We crave answers, even bad ones. They scratch that existential itch. That’s why on social media, there’s an answer for everything, even if it’s wrong, glammed up with confidence and a Canva background. Sometimes I reply with the meme of the seagull on a busted fence: “Correlation doesn’t equal causation.” But other times? It feels like we’re being told that species morphing into Franken-blends is just a coincidence…all for the sake of corporate convenience. As absurd as it is to definitively link a health outcome to a specific exposure without a proper scientific assessment, isn’t it just as absurd to behave as if all these chemicals have zero health impact?
My hope is that, somewhere along the highway to progress, we let precaution take the wheel for a bit. Or, at the very least, stop locking it in the trunk.