Kim Stagliano: "Give Me Credit for Expressing Autism's Grief"
Paul Offit: Proselytizes as Pope of the Church of Immaculate Vaccination

Health Risk Déjà Vu, Part 2:The Big Stink About Toxic Scents

STINK the movieRead Nancy's Part 1 here.

By Nancy Hokkanen

When we fix one problem, we sometimes create another – that’s a frustrating paradox in today’s society. Product manufacturers’ risky use of potentially harmful chemicals in our food, clothing, care products and furnishings mirrors the ethical tradeoffs and fraud in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s one-size-fits-all vaccine program. By ignoring reports of vaccine adverse reactions due to mutagenic metals and toxic chemicals at extremely low doses, public health policymakers perversely allow autism and chronic disease rates to rise.

As consumers’ injuries and deaths increase due to unregulated chemical poisoning from myriad products, more parents are becoming vocal advocates working to improve people’s health and safety. My 2014 Age of Autism article described profiteering corporations, chemicals and fabricated advocates that harm the public’s health by lying about the toxicity of flame retardants. Victims and families are creating their own potent cumulative synergism when vocally pushing back against institutional denials of health harm from chronic low-dose exposure to poisonous chemicals.

Case in point – the 2015 documentary Stink. The film begins with one parent’s look at flame retardants in a child’s pajamas, then expands into an investigation of the huge fragrance industry – merchandise, companies, executives, trade groups, regulatory agencies and politicians.

Stink was produced and narrated by Jon Whelan, a father of two and former co-CEO of In 2009 Whelan’s wife died of breast cancer, a heartbreaking experience and catalyst for his research on chemicals in everyday consumer products. As a single parent he was now solely responsible to protect his daughters… even, as it turned out, from their sleepwear.

After Whelan noticed a “noxious synthetic odor” emanating from pajamas he’d purchased from the tween store Justice, he contacted their staff – but got no definitive answers about the stink’s source. So he had the pajamas analyzed by a lab, which detected “potentially problematic” chemicals including a carcinogenic flame retardant similar to Tris [Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate], and phthalates, endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC’s) that cause systemic malfunction by mimicking natural hormones. Like ethylmercury in the vaccine preservative Thimerosal, EDC’s are hazardous at very low levels and are linked to birth defects.

Thus the choice of “Justice” as a brand name seems a misnomer, given that the company sells products containing endocrine-disrupting chemicals to pubescent children. And in 2010 the chain was forced to recall jewelry that contained cadmium, a toxic heavy metal OSHA says is “known to cause cancer and targets the body’s cardiovascular, renal, gastrointestinal, neurological, reproductive, and respiratory systems.”

In one scene Whelan raises a stink with Tween Brands Inc. CEO Michael Rayden, confronting him outside a shareholders’ meeting. When Whelan tells Rayden that by not listing his products’ chemicals he is not doing the right thing by consumers, Rayden evasively replies, “Who is?”

Just what is the definition of “fragrance”? Manufacturers’ ingredient labels use that word as an umbrella term for up to 100 synthetic chemicals. Because these formulas are considered proprietary, they are government-protected trade secrets – like the recipes for soda pop or fast food. “Fracking fluids and fragrance share many of the same toxic ingredients,” Whelan said.

Consumers know fragrance is found in perfumes and colognes, shampoo, deodorant, lotion and makeup. And it’s easy to detect noxious chemical scents from fingernail polish, cleaning fluids or dryer sheets. But chemical fragrance can also be found in the food we eat, the toys our children handle, the paper products we use – and all those smaller exposures add up.

Tuolene, styrene, parabens and formaldehyde are just a few of the chemicals allowed to be in Health & Beauty Care (HBC) products without warning labels. Unfair, said Whelan, who believes requiring explicit labeling gives consumers data necessary for truly informed choice. “If these chemicals are safe, then why is industry so afraid of disclosing them?” he asked. “They are testing their products on us… we are guinea pigs.”

According to Whelan, women and teenaged girls use up to 20 scented personal care products a day, while men use about half that. Routes of toxic chemical and metals exposures include absorption through skin, inhalation, ingestion and the most direct route, injection. Over time, daily low exposures to chemicals and metals result in bioaccumulations in our tissues… until our body burden reaches its unique toxic tipping point.

Because everyone reacts differently to chemical exposures, debate continues over whether the toxicity science is truly settled. Doubt permits the chemical industry to ignore the precautionary principle, often with detrimental or even lethal results for consumers. “They’re sick people, they’re dying people, they’re people that have birth defects or learning disabilities,” said Dr. Jennifer Sass, senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “With toxic chemicals, we keep being exposed – until we’re certain that it might cause harm. That means waiting for data, and those data are body bags.”

Stink spotlights the frightening near-fatal experiences of New Jersey teen Brandon Silk, who suffered an anaphylactic reaction to Axe body spray. After a hospital challenge test confirmed Axe was the culprit, Brandon’s mother asked Unilever for a list of the pungent cologne’s ingredients – but initially the company refused. Eventually the boy’s doctors were given a list of Axe’s ingredients, but not until they had signed a medical gag order. (New Jersey is also home to many companies such as BASF, Johnson & Johnson, Proctor and Gamble, Revlon and L’Oreal, all heavy chemical users.)

Preventing such life-threatening reactions was a government priority forty years ago. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was signed into law by President Gerald Ford in 1976. But it wasn’t long before chemical industry trade associations stepped up lobbying to avoid government regulations. Starting in the 1980s, state governments began passing laws to counteract lack of federal enforcement of TSCA – so trade unions expanded their lobbying efforts to the states.

Though 80,000 chemicals are now in use worldwide, the strong federal laws and central agency needed to carefully monitor and regulate use do not truly exist. The combined efforts of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (criticized as captured agencies controlled by industry) only provide an ineffective scattershot approach to chemical regulation.

“The law has not given the EPA the authority it needs to identify the chemicals that may be problematic, and secondly, even where we do get info that indicates a chemical is of high concern, EPA lacks the authority to regulate that chemical,” said Dr. Richard Denison, a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund.

Globally the World Health Organization issues reports on human biomonitoring of toxic exposures, but its inability to enforce policy implementation by industry renders it nearly toothless.

Non-government consumer advocacy groups such as the Environmental Working Group and the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics work hard to engage the consciences and votes of legislators, activists and the under-informed general public. According to Andy Igrejas, director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, “Most people don’t quite realize that chemicals that are used in the products that you buy that you take into your home are not really regulated by the federal government.” That lack of a regulating agency is, he says, “by design.”

Like vaccines and adverse reactions to them, other chemical solutions to society’s problems have had a history of backfiring. After a tragic series of children’s deaths linked to burning sleepwear, the Flammable Fabrics Act was created in 1953. It first operated under the auspices of the Federal Trade Commission, then later was shifted to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The flame retardant Tris was once used to make children’s sleepwear fire-resistant. Then Dr. Arlene Blum of the Green Science Policy Institute and her 1970s research team discovered Tris was capable of mutating genes. The CPSC’s subsequent ban of Tris was overturned by a court decision, yet manufacturers stopped using it anyway. But Dr. Blum said manufacturers simply replaced it with chlorinated Tris, a form now used in mattresses and sofas. It’s estimated that every U.S. home now contains four lbs. of flame retardant chemicals.

“The rise in autism… the rise in certain childhood cancers… all have to be due to environmental factors,” EDF’s Dr. Denison said. His line graph showed that the recent steep jump in chemical use parallels the spike in infant and childhood disorders such as autism. However years ago Safeminds produced a similar chart showing matching sharp increases in autism concurrent with an increase in Thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines. Though both toxic sources could be causing neurological damage, the chemical and vaccine industries use such duplicative data explications to instead obfuscate the causality issue.

In 2003 UC-Davis’s MIND Institute launched CHARGE (Childhood Autism Risks from Genetics and the Environment), “the first comprehensive study of environmental causes and risk factors for autism and developmental delay.” However CHARGE has been criticized for avoiding study of vaccine causality and for affiliating with Autism Speaks, whose focus is awareness and searching for “the autism gene.”

The same utilitarian “greater good” arguments extolled by vaccine researchers to rationalize vaccine injury and lifelong chronic illness to consumers are also leveraged by chemical companies. Said Dr. Blum, “I’ve heard statements, ‘If even one life is saved, it’s worth putting these chemicals in their products.’ [But] there is a mountain of science showing harm.”

On September 6, 2012, Jon Whelan drove to the New York State Assembly’s public hearing on flame retardant chemicals in children’s products. There an American Chemistry Council lobbyist, well-funded ACC president & CEO Cal Dooley, testified against the ban. Dooley stated that the industry should not have to start using the precautionary principle because “you would never be able to prove with certainty that anything is perfectly safe.”

Denouncing Dooley’s phrasing as “political doublespeak,” Whelan later intercepted him in the hallway after a Congressional hearing. When asked whether consumers should be told about undisclosed carcinogens and endocrine-disrupting chemicals for safety and transparency, Dooley again avoided the question by saying, “We place a great deal of confidence in our regulatory agencies.”

Whelan is working toward two key changes in U.S. chemical use laws:

  1. Companies disclose all ingredients in their products;
  2. Congress fixes TSCA.

He may get part of his wish: In 2016 Congress passed a bill to reform TSCA, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (LCSA). However the bill is a mixed bag; like this country’s Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, LCSA may eventually hamstring the EPA and limit state rights. And like VICP, it ends up perpetuating secrecy.

In addition Jon Whelan wants the U.S. to prevent the personal care product industry from using chemicals that have been banned by other countries. The European Union has banned more than 1,200 chemicals it considers harmful to human health. Their law regulating chemicals in commerce is known as REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals). REACH requires that before a chemical can be approved for use, manufacturers must submit toxicity data in full to the European Chemical Agency. 


But enacting a similar federal law will likely be a hard sell in Washington, DC. “Business is writing the rules” for chemical use, said Seventh Generation co-founder Jeffrey Hollender. “When I go shopping in a store, I assume… someone’s made sure that it’s safe… that if a product was dangerous, toxic, carcinogenic – [it] wouldn’t be allowed to be sold. And that’s a fundamentally inaccurate assumption. No one’s made sure that it’s safe.”

“We’ve been fooled into thinking that all the products in our homes are safe,” Whelan said. “I’m trying to do the right thing for my kids, but because companies are hiding what’s in their products, I can’t… We are quietly becoming genetically modified by toxic chemicals.”

Like the many parents of vaccine-injured children, Jon Whelan’s life became transformed by a health-related tragedy. At the crossroads of complacency and action, he saw only one ethical choice.

“Once you know, you look at things through a different lens,” Whelan said. “And then you’re left with two choices: Help fix what’s broken, or live with the status quo.”



Examining the Current State of Cosmetics:

Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on

Energy and Commerce House of Representatives, March 27, 2012

Rep. Edward Markey (Massachusetts) and Michael M. Landa, FDA:

Mr. MARKEY. If a company decided to include arsenic in 2012 as a component of a face cream, would they even have to notify the FDA first?

Mr. LANDA. It would not.

Mr. MARKEY. Now, if the arsenic was used as a component of a fragrance mixture, would the company be required to list arsenic on the product label?

Mr. LANDA. As a component of a fragrance, it would not.

Mr. MARKEY. It would not. So that would come, I think, as a shock to most people… The FDA does not have the authority to require that to be disclosed to the public, and I think therein lies the problem…. [F]rom my perspective… everyone has a right to be protected, everyone has a right to know what could happen to them because of exposure to these chemicals.

Nancy Hokkanen is Contributing Editor to Age of Autism.



An article about this popped up in the local news. The father was convicted. It is made to look like he did it for the insurance money.

The article below mentions multiple instances of febrile seizures in this 15 month old toddler.
After reading this site for years, I wonder if there is something more

Jeannette Bishop

It's good to see the efforts of those like Mr. Whelan. There are so many fronts on what seems to be a war on health sometimes. Maybe there are some principles for guiding our practices on which many groups can come together to uphold. I personally suspect that consumer choice will be the strongest regulating force.

I feel like I was somehow rather miseducated about how to be healthy, and I probably can't finger all the sources of my miseducation. I think I was firstly rendered so toxic via "healthcare" exposures (that you couldn't even question or there was something degenerate about you) by the time I was a teen that I couldn't invest much in "skincare" & "beauty" without driving myself over-the-top crazy with the added insults, but I tried some for a while. I was turned off mostly via exhaustion (20+ extra minutes to sleep became way more important than a somewhat complicated self "maintenance" regimen every morning & night). Now I don't like seeing all the marketing, to young women particularly, that you "need" all these formulations, preying on desires to look their best, when they are already so beautiful (and ironically likely to never look better). And the time some of them spend using all these seems like such a huge consumption of their time and energies! Someone once rendered me pretty much beyond redemption by complimenting my hairstyle--it looked so unusually nice--on a day I rushed to campus with wet, only slightly combed hair, dried by the breeze as a walked to class.

Another "irony" I experienced, antiperspirants & deodorants, sometimes even perfumes made me stink more, often locking bad odors into my clothes too (I suspect that my issues were exasperated by huge dental amalgam load killing off a happy microbial balance on my skin--just a guess), but I first started using them because one "had to" use something to not be offensive to the world. I eventually gave up completely, even though some couldn't believe that nothing really was better than something. For me at the time it was. The best "deodorant" I've tried lately (and it's not that hard to make, now, and I hope not polluted) is a one part baking soda with one part coconut oil paste (not that coconut oil would have been easy for me to get when younger... but maybe other oils could be substituted).

Perhaps there is, in principle, a loss of one form of safety/health & nutritional value when you want shelf life and something guaranteed to be antiseptic, etc. But real education started fairly young on nutrition and care alternatives, with some balance added to the anti-microbial mindset might really help our children today.

And the worst practices to me were the sort of herding pressures on a young impressionable parent from corporate interests and groupies that you get promoting something like flame retardant sleepwear, vaccinations, etc. I didn't exactly feel right about flame retardants for instance, but if everything labelled as "sleepwear" had to have could I believe it was generally a dubious practice? ...and how dangerous of a parent would I have been if I didn't? I think now that my instincts might have actually been in so much conflict with what I thought were widespread practices that I couldn't help but easily doubt them. Things were that off? The internet seems to help parents counter these pressures today. I really hope that continues.


all these things are issues for me, just walking down the street. never mind going inside with people who wear perfumes, fabric conditioner, clothes in shops, all sorts of things.
i do find that vitamin c helps.
up to a point.


Hemp matresses - bed linen - no conditioner softner in the washing- non-bio washing etc etc Happy days with autism as AS says live with it .grrr!

Pharma for Prison


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)