(no subject)

[pantryslut]

(I will fill in links later. It's hard to find ones from sources I consider to be "neutral" *and* aren't locked into subscription-only archives. But I'm working on it.)


I'm having mixed feelings about this whole phthalate thing.

Phthalates are chemicals used to soften plastics. Some places you will find phthalates: anything vinyl (PVC -- this includes everything from fetish wear to dishwasher racks), nail polish, baby teething toys, and sex toys. Among many, many other things.

There is a lot of research supporting the hypthesis that phthalates mess with the reproductive systems of male vertebrates. Specifically, phthalates are estrogen mimics, and they have a "feminizing" effect. And, by the way, there are a lot of feminized fish and amphibians showing up. This is a significant environmental issue. Phthalates are one (and only one) possible suspect in this.

There's also clear evidence that phthalates tend to leach from the plastics they are commonly used to soften. It's easy for them to end up in large quantities in, say, river water, and then to adversely affect, at a guess, fish and amphibians and so forth. And, OK, possibly humans too.

There's some preliminary evidence* that yes, phthalate exposure might be bad for human boys and men and their reproductive capacities. It's very preliminary and highly disputed evidence, but there you go.

But I think it is a rather odd leap of logic to go from there to, say, throwing out all your jelly sex toys because you're afraid of polluting your precious bodily essences or, you know, going infertile or something.

The phthalate-free sex toy movement has suddenly become a big deal (at least to my insider eyes). All the progressive sex toy websites seem to have a discussion of it somewhere or other. Some proclaim themselves proudly phthalate-free. Folks I know have written columns on the subject. And so on and so on.

But...

The amount of exposure to phthalates one person gets from one jelly dong is *nothing*. Statistically insignificant. Especially when you factor in, I dunno, did I mention nail polish up there? Yes, I did. And how about that dishwasher rack? OR the nozzle of your sporty little water bottle?

Or, quite significantly, medical equipment?**

And besides, that's not the issue anyway. Because personal exposure is not the issue. There's no evidence that it causes any harm *to adults*. Maybe to male fetuses -- because phthalates are an estrogen mimic, remember? -- and possibly young children, but, again, that's just a hypothesis at best at this point.

There are a lot more dangerous things we're exposed to every day -- heavy metals (lead and mercury), for example. Very bad for you, and very common. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Phthalates, though, I think are probably still under the water line.

And even when it comes to environmental estrogen mimics (aka xenoestrogens)...well, I read an article the other day that pointed out a whole lot of unmetabolized estrogens are ending up in our water systems due to birth control pill use, and that this might be a factor in the feminized fish and amphibians that are turning up all over the world, but especially in the US.

Huh.

There's a whole class of "OMG, everyday objects could kill you!" stories going around these days -- think deodorant and breast cancer, and that's just off the top of my head -- and, hey, by the way, I've noticed that women's magazines seem to traffic in them a lot. Not sure why, except to make people feel panicky and insecure...

I am kinda against the large-scale *manufacture* of , say, jelly sex toys, because, you see, that means more phthalates leaching into the environment, and thus more precipitous drops in frog and fish popoulations, and collapsing ecosystems, and so on and so forth.

There's a dynamic here that disturbs me. It doesn't *surprise* me, note. But it does disturb me. When something has a clear-cut, demonstrable, and significant adverse environmental effect, we let it slide in the name of convenience. But if you can concoct a far-fetched theory as to why it might affect your own health -- and remember, this isn't "phthalates will give you cancer!" hysteria, this is, essentially, "phthalates will make you infertile!" -- then, suddenly, it's a cause.

But I am also wondering this: why sex toys? Why is that where the idea to go phthalate-free fixated on? Why start with jelly dildos, eh? Of all things? Of all things.


* Note the sidebar that ranks human phthalate exposure by age group. Toddlers have about three times the exposure level of adults.

** For instance, "[T]he panel determined that critically ill male infants undergoing medical treatment with vinyl medical equipment can receive doses of DEHP that may adversely affect reproductive development."

Comments

[savia.livejournal.com]

Hmm. This is an issue I work with every day - chemicals in the environment - and phthalates are pretty high on our list of problem chemicals. Dibutyl Phthalate in particular, because it is actually linked to an increased risk for breast cancer and other health problems.

Shanna Swan's independent study (read: not industry funded, and it's - surprise - mainly the chemical industry that has a problem with her study, the same chemical industry that has this year launched a feel-good public relations campaign) on male fetal exposure to phthalates was a solid one, and a good start. It's just sad that we have to actually prove that something is not safe, rather than the other way around.

This goes back to the whole idea of the precautionary principle. It seems to me that it's not okay to have estrogenic chemicals like bisphenol-a and phthalates in toys and other products, where they can leach out. I don't want to have to worry about safe sex with myself, either, other than "clean your toys properly."

To me, it's like saying, okay, I'm going to put some arsenic in your food, but just a little bit, every day for the rest of your life. Would you be okay with that? I wouldn't. Or, okay, we're going to put some lead into the pipes in your house, but it's only going to leech a little bit, but that's okay, right? No way!

It's also not just people using this stuff occasionally, it's really a profound occupational hazard for people who are around it daily, who manufacture the stuff, etc. Think about pregnant nail salon workers, who have an incredibly high rate of fetal development problems. It's repeated, small, daily exposures that are the problem, and as you said, it's widespread.

My problem with this country is that we pollute first, ask questions later. It just makes more sense to be the other way around.

And it does seem a little silly that male infertility is more alarming to people than breast cancer; but then Viagra has been responsible for far, far more health problems than RU-486 because of its use/misuse, and look at the disparity between how those two things are treated.

[pantryslut.livejournal.com]

As I said, I am not so keen on the use of phthalates in manufacturing. I've read the research, and environmental estrogen mimics and their effects have been a strong interest of mine for some time.

But:

a) why start with sex toys (and not, say, nail polish)?
b) why start with *personal use of sex toys*?

I do not think that using a jelly dong, even every day, is going to put you at anywhere near the same risk level as that of a nail salon worker, but nonetheless, I'm not hearing a lot about protecting nail salon workers. Now, some of this might just be because I have more connections to the sex toy industry than the nail polish industry -- but I have my doubts.

[savia.livejournal.com]

Actually, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics put pressure on OPI to remove toluene, formaldehyde and dibutyl phthalate from their polish, which they did (mostly - there's still formaldehyde in some of their nail treatments). The California Healthy Nail Salons Collaborative is working on these and other issues. The cosmetic industry trade magazines have been reporting on these issues for some time, as have other prominent places like Ms. and most recently Vogue. So, there are people on it.

You ask why start with sex toys, and I ask, if that is the most important thing to you (not you personally, but 'you' as a general term), then why NOT start there?

I think the way the issue has to be tackled is from a number of angles - there are people like me on the Campaign working on getting toxic chemicals out of cosmetics, and a lot of non-profits laboring over chemical policy reform in California and other states, as well as on the national level (and that in particular is slow-going, arduous, difficult, maddening work). There's people working on PVC, and household products, children's toys, etc.

So why not someone working on the sex toys angle? It's equally important, and someone has to speak up about it.

[pantryslut.livejournal.com]

It's equally important

This is where we disagree, in a nutshell. I think it is *less* important. A lot less.

[savia.livejournal.com]

Where you may be thinking I'm saying it's equally important in terms of exposure, etc., I am *actually* saying that it is equally important in terms of chemical policy strategy. The wider the net, the more items are ridded of the chemical, the weaker the chemical lobby becomes, and the stronger the general movement. That, in a nutshell, is why they are equally important. :)

[pantryslut.livejournal.com]

And I still disagree.

a) I think such campaigns are often disingenuous.
b) I think it diverts energy from more effective and needed campaigns.

[smashingstars.livejournal.com]

I can't speak for users and purveyors of sex toys. I'm just not part of that world, so I couldn't even speculate.

For middle America (where I unfortunately have a lot of experience) I think people are reductionists at heart, and it's easy for their little brains to link sex toys and sexual reproduction. The second factor is that sex toys are still salacious and dirty while becoming mainstream enough that sex toy references have seeped into their sitcoms and women's mags. I can see Good Housekeeping running an article about phthalates which would of course include a brief little off-hand comment from an interviewee who adds "even sex toys" to the list of possible phthalate sources. It's informative and salacious! Big win!

But I'm bitter. And you may not have been concerned with how this segment of society thinks at all (which is more than understandable.)

[pantryslut.livejournal.com]

My suspicion is similar. Sex toys are easy to target b/c of lingering sexual shame, plus salaciousness. Easy publicity win!

Also, I think nail salon workers get less protection b/c they're not usually white and middle class, unlike, say, the demographic that buys sex toys from phthalate-free sites, not to mention the demographic that women's magazines advertise to. (Did I say that out loud?)

Another thing I am going to say out loud: it's like PETA targeting fur instead of factory livestock farming. (But they do both! I hear the cries. Yes, but what do they spend their publicity budget on? Guess.)

[smashingstars.livejournal.com]

I was going to say something similar about nail salon workers but I wondered if it was a regional thing particular to where I lived. Also, we have two beauty schools in town and the students are definitely regarded as low class, stupid, "sluts", etc.

[kalmn.livejournal.com]

to use your example, i think what pantryslut is saying here is, why get the arsenic out of the food, but leave the arsenic in the air, the water, the playground equipment, toothpaste...

[pantryslut.livejournal.com]

Bingo. Thank you.

[kalmn.livejournal.com]

also, in regards to the estrogens in the water supply due to birth control, i have given up peeing.

i might need to renege on this promise in a few minutes, though.

[pantryslut.livejournal.com]

:):):)

[genderfur.livejournal.com]

LOLOL!

[savia.livejournal.com]

See my reply above - basically, there are people working on various angles (including nail polish!), and there need to be people working on the sex toy angle, as well.

[thette.livejournal.com]

I know there was an effort in the EU lately to ban phtalates in toys. One where, presumably, childless people approved the ban for toys "meant to be used in the mouth", such as bite rings.

[19-crows.livejournal.com]

I agree with you. Partly on the idea that sex toys are suddenly becoming a cause because of shame issues, partly on how illogical it is. I agree with this:

When something has a clear-cut, demonstrable, and significant adverse environmental effect, we let it slide in the name of convenience. But if you can concoct a far-fetched theory as to why it might affect your own health, then, suddenly, it's a cause.

For what it's worth, I haven't hear about sex toys and chemicals being a cause in women's magazines (yet).

[genderfur.livejournal.com]

Why start with jelly dildos, eh? Of all things? Of all things.

It didn't. It started with babies' pacifiers.

Or at least, in the mainstream awareness, it did. Phthalates in baby-bottle-nipples and teething rings and pacifiers (to name 3 that are *designed* to go in the mouth) has been an issue in the public mind for at least a couple of years, I think.

Random points:
=Other plastics are also problematic. I'm talking the harder plastics that are used for 1-gallon water bottles, or for Nalgene bottles, or for baby bottles. (Maybe they all have phthalates? I dunno.)
=There was a recent story in the Chron about how the last remaining mfrs of *glass* baby bottles are getting overwhelmed with orders.
=Leaving those 1-gallon plastic water bottles in the sun is a good way to generate nasty chemicals (and when I told my Burning Man friends about that and to cover their water, they thought I was just talking about keeping it cool and they blew me off).
=That nasty plastic wrap that self-seals if you press it against itself? I hate that it even exists. People are just wrapping their food in poison.