This is the headline of an article in the August 2010 issue of Parents magazine, with the word TOXIC highlighted in red. As you might expect, the accompanying photographs are of a family enjoying daily activities in their home from the safety of yellow hazmat suits. Shocking! Do we really live in a “toxic” world?

There has never been a better or safer time to be a human being. We live in climate controlled houses that protect us from wind, weather, and predators; we eat food that is safety tested and heavily regulated; we wear fire retardant clothing that wicks away moisture to regulate our body temperature; we have emergency services standing by to protect us from criminals, to rescue or resuscitate us, or to whisk us to a hospital; we drive cars that are basically rolling safety cells; and we have regulatory bodies and watchdog groups that constantly, round the clock, comb over every imaginable substance in the environment trying to figure out how to make things even safer. Today’s world is the safest it has ever been. No previous generation of humans has ever had it so good.

How, then, did we ever get this far without wearing hazmat suits?

Obviously Parents’ depiction of the hazmat suits is a little tongue-in-cheek (or so I hope, anyway) — even the dog is wearing goggles; so let’s turn to the actual article to see what they really want us to think. The article begins, keeping step with the popular formula, with a touching personal anecdote of someone whose life is shattered by toxins. “I was shocked to learn what my unborn baby and I were exposed to,” says the frightened mom.

And what was this? It turns out the levels of BPA and DEP in her blood place her in the top 10%. BPA (Bisphenol A) and DEP (Diethyl phthalate) are well-publicized endocrine disruptors: they bind to a living cell’s hormone receptors, thus taking the place of the body’s natural hormone that would normally bind there. Sounds scary!! What effect will that have on her unborn baby?

Well, none, in all probability. Simply being in the top 10% still places her far, far below dangerous levels. As far as is known, nobody has ever been found to have suffered any harmful effects from environmental levels of endocrine disruptors. The theory and the threat are certainly there: lab animal tests have proven the potential effects at high levels, and a few small studies find correlations (other studies fail to replicate these results); but so far, no victims. It’s still something to be concerned about, and this is why we regulate these compounds so closely, and such concerns are why the established safe level of BPA is currently being reduced even farther.

Endocrine disruptors are natural compounds that are found throughout the environment. They always have been, they always will be; even our natural-living forebears 100,000 years ago had to deal with endocrine disruptors. To put it in perspective, you get more from a single serving of sunflower seeds, soybeans or alfalfa sprouts than you do from a lifetime use of water bottles containing BPA.

Yet articles like this one still feel the need to trumpet calls like “Take Action for Tougher Chemical Laws”, which is the name of a sidebar in the article advising you to write your Congressperson and to join a variety of Internet activism web sites.

The article ends with a section called “Safer Swaps”, suggesting a variety of natural products instead of more common developed products. It says “Whether you make one, some, or all [of these recommended changes], your family’s health will benefit — and fast.” This is an outright lie. I challenge the editors to present even a single plausible example of a family whose health is currently proven to be impaired by any of the products in the list, and who make a dramatic, fast turnaround simply by switching to one of the alternatives offered. This is irresponsible shock-jock journalism, plain and simple.

The article concludes with:

…We wait for chemical-policy reform and for scientists to understand the full scope of these daily yet preventable (endocrine disruptor) exposures.

There are so many things wrong with this sentence that it’s hard to keep track. It starts with the weasel-word “chemical” which pretends that some compounds are evil “chemicals” while natural alternatives are not. That’s wrong. But let’s pretend that there is a “chemical policy” that needs “reform”. What does Parents magazine think the EPA and the FDA do all day? They regulate these things. These policies are constantly being revised and improved, and guidelines constantly changing as our knowledge improves daily. It is irresponsible and wrong to say that we need to write our Congresspeople to demand that somebody improve “chemical policy”. (Go ahead, post your comment charging me with claiming that everything about government is perfect.)

And, note the obligatory jab at scientists, who have yet to “understand the full scope” of endocrine disruptors. What, because they have not read this article? I would like to assure the readers of Parents that the scientists whose jobs are to study these things are much better informed than is the author of this article. It is due to the work of scientists that we know about the risks of endocrine disruptors to begin with.

Finally, the author suggests that exposure is preventable. As endocrine disruptors are found naturally throughout the environment, preventing such exposure is neither possible nor practical. They are part of our world. Manmade chemicals have certainly increased their levels measurably, and scientists and policymakers have been on the job ever since we learned about the problems. The products we use and the food we eat is tightly regulated by science-driven policy to ensure that it’s not a danger. Consumers do not need to panic and rush out to replace everything they own or put on hazmat suits.

Is the world perfect? No. Are you in grave danger from endocrine disruptors simply by living in our “toxic world”? No, and Parents’ editors should know better than to promote such baseless sensationalism. That is not serving parents.