If you have done shopping the past 6 months, you will notice an ever-increasing attention to show off a label that screams ”Non-Toxic.’ This seems really great on the surface until you peel back some of the layers in the battle of non-toxic vs. toxin free living.
It’s one of those things you may or may not want to dig into. It’s like Tom’s Shoes. On the surface, it’s a great idea. You buy a pair of shoes and they donate a pair of shoes. You forget about the rest…unless you work in the non-profit relief sector of these countries like a friend of mine, John. What you don’t see is that these donated shoes then puts the village shoe repairman out of business. These donated shoes also have a tendency to increase crime and violence as the shoes are stolen and you may be beaten up to get the shoes off your feet. Is there anyone to monitor that these don’t happen? Probably not.
Non-toxic is no different. There’s no regulation of the term non-toxic, just like there’s no regulation of the ‘pink ribbon’ to support breast cancer either. Anybody can slap that pink tag on any item and dupe you into feeling like you’re making a difference.
Why not make a pair of slippers with a non-toxic label, pink ribbon shoe laces, and donate them to those without shoes? Man you would help a ton of people.
In theory, there is a cutoff where something can be called non-toxic but that doesn’t mean it’s safe or toxic free.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is the federal agency responsible for administering the Federal Hazardous Substance Act. The Federal Hazardous Substance Act defines ‘a product is toxic if it can produce personal injury or illness to humans when it is inhaled, swallowed, or absorbed through the skin.’
(5) Toxic shall apply to any substance (other than a radioactive substance) which has the capacity to produce personal injury or illness to man through ingestion, inhalation, or absorption through any body surface. (6)(i) Highly toxic means any substance which falls within any of the following categories: (A) Produces death within 14 days in half or more than half of a group of 10 or more laboratory white rats each weighing between 200 and 300 grams, at a single dose of 50 milligrams or less per kilogram of body weight, when orally administered; or (B) Produces death within 14 days in half or more than half of a group of 10 or more laboratory white rats each weighing between 200 and 300 grams, when inhaled continuously for a period of 1 hour or less at an atmospheric concentration of 200 parts per million by volume or less of gas or vapor or 2 milligrams per liter by volume or less of mist or dust, provided such concentration is likely to be encountered by man when the substance is used in any reasonably foreseeable manner; or (C) Produces death within 14 days in half or more than half of a group of 10 or more rabbits tested in a dosage of 200 milligrams or less per kilogram of body weight, when administered by continuous contact with the bare skin for 24 hours or less. (ii) If the Commission finds that available data on human experience with any substance indicate results different from those obtained on animals in the dosages and concentrations specified in paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section, the human data shall take precedence.
In other words, if a substance kills ONLY 49% of the test subjects, it could be legally labeled non-toxic. Makes you feel really safe, right? How does this translate to humans?