No, I’m not making this up, this is a real issue. Here’s an article in China Daily, and here’s the Greenpeace press release. This is the latest attempt by Greenpeace to get the textile industry to clean up its act (see this post about the last battle in the war).
So here’s the deal. Greenpeace did a study on Yangtze River fish and, I think not surprisingly, found toxic chemicals in several species:
Greenpeace took samples of two commonly eaten fish, catfish and carp, from four cities scattered along the Yangtze, ranging from upriver Chongqing to near-coastal Nanjing and analysed them for two key groups of hazardous chemicals. Almost all of the sampled fish contained alkylphenols such as nonylphenol (NP) and octylphenol (OP) , which are commonly used in detergents and in the textile and leather manufacturing process. They also contained perfluorinated compounds, including perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), typically used as a water- or grease-repellant coating in food packaging and textiles, as well as in cosmetics and plastic products.
OK, that sounds scary. I usually order fish without an extra helping of phenols and sulfonates (and MSG), but if this is true, I may have no choice in the matter.
So this toxic marinade is coming from several different industries, including textiles, leather (industry motto: polluting the shit out of the environment for thousands of years), food, cosmetics and plastics. That covers a lot of territory.
But how scared should we be? What does “toxic” mean with these materials, and is Greenpeace being reasonable here?
“These chemicals can mimic hormones, such as natural estrogens, or upset the normal functioning of the endocrine system in other ways. Alkylphenols act like ‘gender-benders’ and can cause altered sexual development in some species, most notably the development of female organs in male fish. Perfluorinated compounds have been associated with altered thyroid function and decreased sperm count in humans,” said Yixiu Wu, toxics campaigner for Greenpeace China.
Female organ development in male fish? Hmm. I guess that’s bad, although on the other hand, parts are parts. I wonder if these organs are edible or not? If this was chicken, I’d be all over those rooster breasts in a minute. (FYI, I’m pretty sure that fish don’t have breasts, not being mammals and all, but it made for a snappy post title.)
This of course takes us to the subject of people. I see a lot of rich businessmen eating fish on a regular basis here in Beijing, and a suspiciously large percentage of them are sporting man breasts under their polo shirts. Coincidence or deus ex endocrinologica?1 If we peeked under these guys’ shirts, would we see scaly fish tits?
As it turns out, there are some human effects after all:
“Medical research shows that indications of NP are higher in the body of precocious girls than they are for other girls the same age,” said Li Yifang, toxics prevention campaigner at Greenpeace, an international environmental organization.
Li said experiments have shown the substance can cause male fish to grow female organs at a concentration as low as 0.02 milligram per liter in water.”We should be aware of its hazards before scientists tell us how much it will hurt us and to what extent,” Li said.
I’m not sure exactly what “precocious girls” are, but it doesn’t sound good, unless you’re into the whole Lolita thing (icky, not to mention illegal). If it’s anything like the problem we’ve had here in China with hormones found in milk, then my reaction is hereby revised to “double icky.”
So this stuff is toxic, it has harmful effects on humans, and it is used in several different industrial processes. I’m almost ready to say “Good job, Greenpeace,” except for the issue of toxicity levels. A spokesman for Li Ning responded to the study, saying that their NPE levels were in line with EU standards. Adidas has made similar reassurances.
Greenpeace countered that those standards referred to levels used during manufacturing, whereas they tested for residue on clothing after the fact. I get it, but the companies are presumably still working within government limits.
Seems to me that some more research is needed, and if it shows that this stuff at current levels (in humans) is dangerous, then standards might need to be revised, which means lobbying governments. I’m not sure, however, that Greenpeace’s scary press release is going to sway too many companies or regulators to make any swift changes.
Precocious girls and fish tits. From a PR perspective, I don’t think that’s going to frighten the public.
________________________________
- Not a real scientific, or literary, term. But it should be.
________________________________
