Widespread Distrust Fuels Toxin Obsession
According to a Pew Charitable Trusts survey from earlier this year, more than 70 percent of US adults say they are worried about exposure to harmful chemicals in food and drinking water, and more than half have the same concerns about food packaging and kids' products. The vast majority want government and businesses to act. This rare consensus in a polarized country is driven by strong scientific evidence of harm and high-profile tragedies.
Kim Fortun, an anthropologist at University of California Irvine, began her career studying the 1984 Union Carbide India Limited pesticide plant disaster, where hundreds of thousands were exposed and thousands died. Nicholas Shapiro, an environmental researcher at UCLA, focused on formaldehyde exposure in provisional housing after Hurricane Katrina, calling it "the largest formaldehyde exposure in our species' history." Other disasters include the Fukushima disaster and the East Palestine train derailment.
Shift from Acute Disasters to Everyday Exposures
As one-off disasters become rarer, focus has shifted to long-term, low-grade exposures. Evidence is mounting that everyday substances cause harm. "The science is in," Fortun said. Shapiro's research evolved from acute formaldehyde exposures to mundane exposures from building materials. This combination has seared into American minds the idea of inherent toxicity, buttressed by anti-institution backlash. "No one was minding the store when they're chemically exposing us," Fortun added. Distrust crosses political divides, as seen in the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, attracting both right and left. Alex Nading, a medical and environmental anthropologist at Cornell, noted a shared suspicion of corporate power and nostalgia for a pure environment.
Ideological Divide in Responses
Americans respond differently to toxic threats. Some focus on structural issues and environmental justice, viewing pollution as a racial and social justice issue. Others turn inward, driven by a desire for purity and individual control. "I think one really important difference between the left and the right is that the right is really driven by a desire for purity, the integrity of the body," Fortun said. Nading described two impulses: "regulate" versus "gain control, assert sovereignty." In the current MAHA moment, the latter dominates, as seen in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s rhetoric: "Pesticides, food additives, pharmaceutical drugs, and toxic waste permeate every cell in our bodies." This leads to a focus on consumer products rather than systemic solutions. Shapiro noted that government regulations have evolved to focus on consumer products, while foundational environmental laws for air and water have been undermined.
Need for a Productive Approach
Individual vigilance alone is insufficient; systemic policy reform is also necessary. Gerald LeBlanc, a biologist at North Carolina State University and author of Everyday Chemicals: Understanding the Risks, emphasized the distinction between hazard and harm: "The dose makes the poison." People often think only about hazard without considering exposure. However, this places responsibility on individuals to research chemicals and exposure levels. The DIY medicine era requires being a discerning consumer of data, distinguishing peer-reviewed research from preprints and animal studies from human studies. In the absence of strong governmental action, smarter consumer choices are important in the short term.
Building Long-Term Change
Community organizing can turn fear into fuel for change. Shapiro believes nostalgia for a chemical-free past will run out of gas; we cannot roll back the Industrial Revolution. Organizing involves building relationships with like-minded community members, learning about local laws on pesticides and clean air, and connecting with advocacy groups. Shapiro urged public health workers to engage with MAHA-curious individuals using a Bible study model: small groups discuss issues, review evidence, and brainstorm structural solutions. These shared concerns about toxins can foster connections and organize for policy reforms, potentially leading to real change.
