Are the chemical substances in my cosmetics and child’s plastic bottle dangerous?
Can cosmetics lead to cancer? Which pesticides are trustworthy? The goal of scientific research is to reply to questions like these, however what happens when two or extra reports produce conflicting outcomes? Answers from medicine and science would help provide clearer answers to questions on chemical safety, according to researchers.
Medical and scientific basis has relied upon a procedure called ‘systematic evaluation or systematic reviews’ as a way of weighing up on proof and developing an answer. It saves time and resources, avoids useless study and, within the case of remedy, saves lives.
Chemicals in Cosmetics
In a latest article published in Environment International by Lancaster University, some scientists argue for this procedure to be taken up in chemical hazard risk assessment to help provide clearer solutions to chemical issues.
Paul Whaley of Lancaster University Environment Centre commented, When it comes to determining the risk which chemicals pose to human health and the planet, scientists sometimes struggle to come up with a clear answer because there is no universally accepted system for weighing up the available evidence. This used to be a problem for medicine until they began to introduce a new system for sifting through existing studies to come to a scientifically reliable answer to a particular question.
He further continued, In the late ’60s doctors thought that if you gave a pregnant woman expecting to give birth prematurely a dose of steroids, you could reduce respiratory illness in the infant. Research involving more than 1,000 pregnant women revealed a clear clinical benefit but because the results weren’t communicated quickly, it didn’t filter into general practice. Doctors called for more studies. This rumbled on for 17 years, until a systematic review revealed clear clinical benefits, and it’s now standard practice to prescribe steroids. This example shows how effective systematic review can be in helping settle scientific dispute. It also shows how much unnecessary and low quality research can be done at the expense of an intervention being put in place.
Another guest writer Dr Crispin Halsall commented, Scientists working in the field of Chemical research believe this approach will be fundamental in the future to resolving some of the biggest controversies in chemical risk assessment.
One such issue is whether the chemical triclosan, which has been banned in soaps within Europe but continues to be regularly utilized in cosmetics, is poisonous to people. One of the crucial articles in this issue is the primary systematic evaluation in environmental wellbeing to show that triclosan is “probably toxic” due to its adverse impacts on thyroid hormones. Thyroid hormone imbalance suggests developmental toxicity.
The lead author of the paper, Dr. Paula Johnson remarked, Consumers generally seem to believe that products available for purchase are proven to be safe, and that the government would prevent unsafe products from being sold to us. This is not true. ..Products may contain ingredients with very limited safety testing or, for example, no data on reproductive effects from prenatal exposure. Agencies should adopt systematic review methods to evaluate the toxicity of chemicals. The public could greatly benefit from this, in terms of health and simply from a consumer right-to-know perspective.
Environment International is a global, multidisciplinary journal which centers on the impacts of human activities and its effects on human well being.