Previous by Date: Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Chemical exposure and toxicity Date: Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 8:01:25 AM Author: Niteen Vaidya <niteenv**At_Symbol_Here**CHIROSOLVE.COM>
From: Monona Rossol <0000030664c37427-dmarc-request**At_Symbol_Here**LISTS.PRINCETON.EDU>
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Chemical exposure and toxicity
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2022 14:29:09 +0000
Reply-To: Monona Rossol <actsnyc**At_Symbol_Here**cs.com>
Message-ID: 1766247876.3840771.1643466549954**At_Symbol_Here**mail.yahoo.com
In-Reply-To <83B37F85-9D85-48CA-8329-55825C508C44**At_Symbol_Here**yale.edu>
Demystify:
Good point, Peter. We often think cancer tests and other chronic tests have at least been done on medications. FDA only "recommends" this but there is no law requiring it. Most of the medications on the market are not tested for their ability to cause cancer or other chronic effect that are outside of the scope of the medicine's primary interactions.
I had taken hydrochlorothiazide for about 30 years when it was listed in 2013 as an IARC Group 2B carcinogen with both animal and human data. It's a good drug for the purpose, but I think the cancer risk should be part of the individual's personal risk assessment.
Monona
-----Original Message-----
From: Reinhardt, Peter <peter.reinhardt**At_Symbol_Here**YALE.EDU>
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**Princeton.EDU
Sent: Fri, Jan 28, 2022 6:24 pm
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Chemical exposure and toxicity
LD50 data is most common, but that is only only a very limited aspect of toxicity. Very few chemicals in commerce have been adequately tested for hepatotoxicity, neurotoxicity, learning impairment, the many types of reproductive toxicity, etc.
Recently, we've learned new things about the toxicity of aspirin. There's so much we don't know about the toxicity of chemicals. - Pete Reinhardt
On Jan 28, 2022, at 3:28 PM, Info <info**At_Symbol_Here**ilpi.com> wrote:
As of 2021, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has registered 22,818 substances from 15,718 companies in 100,679 registrations under the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation. This document
contains further details and also notes that ethanol is the top-registered product with 701 registrations: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/2741157/registration_statistics_en.pdf
I think that puts an absolute bottom limit on the active # used in the US. I would imagine that it's substantially more given the laxer regulation in the US in addition to trade secret claims, so I would take the ACC's claim as a baseline.
The number of substance used in commerce has recently been estimated as more than 350,000. The authors note "A noteworthy finding is that the identities of many chemicals remain publicly unknown because they are claimed as confidential (over 50=E2=80-000)
or ambiguously described (up to 70=E2=80-000)" https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.9b06379
So, regardless. whether it''s 40,000 or 350,000, I would imagine that few of the toxicity analyses are comprehensive or complete (except for the IARC), and that far fewer have ever been double checked or replicated. So really, the question boils
down to what a "small percentage" means in that first statement. Is it a half a percent or 4-5% or 20%? Given the wide margin of error of these competing estimates for the # of chemicals, then I think "small" is indeed an apt descriptor. "Few" might been
even more appropriate, but I defer to the toxicologists (and Monona=E2=80™s encyclopedic wisdom) for that.
I wish to assess the veracity of the statement: "There are many tens of thousands of chemicals in use, but only a small percentage have been tested for toxicity. "
With regard to "toxicity" the IARC has listed 121 chemicals as known carcinogens (although this, of course, is not the only form of "toxicity" that affect humans.) RTECS (What
is the Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances? - Definition from Safeopedia) tallies 150,000 chemicals in the list formerly known as the "Toxic Substances List". Their methodology suggests that some
"toxicity" testing has occurred the chemical on this list but there is no connection to the NTP list.
Using these numbers in various combinations, one could conclude that the phrase "small percentage" is the original quote above is "pretty fair" or "entirely unfair". Complex situations often should not be reduced to a single statement and, at the very least,
if the original quote is accurate it should be accompanied by some explanations.
I would welcome from the group some insights about a "fair" statement about "chemical exposure" and the degree to which we have determined the toxicity within that group.
I will end with Monona's title from her book:Pick
Your Poison: How Our Mad Dash to Chemical Utopia is Making Lab Rats of Us All.
Dave
David C. Finster
Professor Emeritus, Department of Chemistry
Wittenberg University
---
For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair atmembership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.orgFollow
us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas
--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at
membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas
---
For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org
Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas
---
For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org
Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas
The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to secretary**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org. The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.
