American food products contain about 2,000 untested chemicals, and it's perfectly legal

This is what happens when you let massive food producing corporations essentially write their own laws.

By Melissa Kravitz Hoeffner
A major but largely glossed over report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), an environmental and public health nonprofit based in Washington, DC, shows that thousands of untested chemicals (an estimated 2,000, to be exact) are found in conventional packaged foods purchasable in U.S. supermarkets. And yes, all of them are legal.


The extensive collection of permissible additives includes several known or suspected carcinogens, such as synthetic sodium nitrate, found in processed meats and considered probably carcinogenic by the World Health Organization, and butylated hydroxyanisole, also known as BHA, a chemical listed as a cancer-causing chemical by the state of California and found in commonplace items like frozen pepperoni pizza. Other unappealing chemicals are commonly found in our food packaging, such as polypropylene, sulfuric acid and bisphenol A — all of which can have impacts on human health and the environment.
How much should consumers panic before their next supermarket trip? "It really depends on what level of risk consumers are comfortable with," said Dawn Undurraga, a nutritionist at EWG and co-author of the study. "The more we learn about what is in conventional foods, the more evidence for concern we accumulate." Independent laboratory tests commissioned by EWG, for example, found glyphosate, a probable carcinogen, in every sample of conventional oats tested.

The fact that dangerous chemicals are legal for use in our food is a major public health concern that goes largely unrecognized by the U.S. government. "Unfortunately, our current policy on food additives was written in 1958 and has been completely co-opted by food and chemical companies," Undurraga said. "Additives that are deemed 'Generally Recognized as Safe,' or GRAS, by a food or chemical company or trade association are exempt from the food additive petition process where the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews the safety of the additive."
Originally, this GRAS exemption was created to cover ingredients widely known to be safe, like vinegar, but with advancements in food science, the provision has been applied to thousands of chemicals. As a result, questionable substances have been allowed into a host of conventional foods. In 2017, EWG joined several other public health groups to file a lawsuit against the FDA in an effort to eliminate the GRAS loophole.
"Rather than close the loophole, the FDA has instead allowed companies to voluntarily notify the agency about food chemicals and to allow companies to summarize the industry science supporting their conclusions," reads the EWG study, elucidating that many scientists who conduct these reviews have been paid by the industry. Plus, the FDA does not subsequently review underlying biological and chemical data, leaving consumers to literally do the dirty work. The FDA did not respond to Truthout's request for comment.

https://www.ecowatch.com/chemicals-packaged-foods-2641391530.html

Stop eating that crap.

Yeah people really need to wise up to the shit that they’re putting into their bodies.

But hang on, is it on the label? Is it common knowledge that these chemicals are bad for you?

Ben Reilly wrote:But hang on, is it on the label? Is it common knowledge that these chemicals are bad for you?

It should be on the labels and I’m pretty sure it is, and...common knowledge? Probably not, seeing as most people either can’t be bothered to know (lazy) or don’t want to know (lazy).

But the information is out there!

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:But hang on, is it on the label? Is it common knowledge that these chemicals are bad for you?

It should be on the labels and I’m pretty sure it is, and...common knowledge? Probably not, seeing as most people either can’t be bothered to know (lazy) or don’t want to know (lazy).

But the information is out there!

First of all, do people know the names of these chemicals? I don't.

Secondly, I think labeling laws are more strict in the EU than in the U.S.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:But hang on, is it on the label? Is it common knowledge that these chemicals are bad for you?

It should be on the labels and I’m pretty sure it is, and...common knowledge? Probably not, seeing as most people either can’t be bothered to know (lazy) or don’t want to know (lazy).

But the information is out there!

First of all, do people know the names of these chemicals? I don't.

Secondly, I think labeling laws are more strict in the EU than in the U.S.

No they probably don’t know the names of the chemicals, you’re right, but people by and large, do know that chemicals aren’t “food” or natural products.
Of course they can always look into it? A lot of people spend time on the Internet so they could look them up?

Labelling laws may be stricter over here, I don’t know so can’t answer that except to ask....WHY are they?

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:But hang on, is it on the label? Is it common knowledge that these chemicals are bad for you?

It should be on the labels and I’m pretty sure it is, and...common knowledge? Probably not, seeing as most people either can’t be bothered to know (lazy) or don’t want to know (lazy).

But the information is out there!

First of all, do people know the names of these chemicals? I don't.

Secondly, I think labeling laws are more strict in the EU than in the U.S.

No they probably don’t know the names of the chemicals, you’re right, but people by and large, do know that chemicals aren’t “food” or natural products.
Of course they can always look into it? A lot of people spend time on the Internet so they could look them up?

Labelling laws may be stricter over here, I don’t know so can’t answer that except to ask....WHY are they?

I'm just saying, if you've gone to the store to buy 20 different food items, are you really going to sit there googling chemical names on each label?

And our food is full of relatively safe chemicals, too. I'd hate to spend all that time, googling all those chemical names, just to find that they're all colors or preservatives.

Our food labeling laws are more lax in the U.S. because we let food producers largely regulate themselves. Most of the laws are literally written by lobbying groups that hand them over to -- and since I'm trying to shy away from the left-right thing here as much as possible, I'll just put it this way -- "business friendly" members of Congress who largely just vote them into law without bothering to read them.

Okay, I’ll just say this, if there’s a food label on an item you’re buying that you can’t pronounce or have never heard of? Probably shit.
Secondly, if anyone is bothered enough it takes two minutes to find the article that you found.

And lastly....America is greedy. The big fat rich bastards are always going to win if the people stay lazy.

eddie wrote:Okay, I’ll just say this, if there’s a food label on an item you’re buying that you can’t pronounce or have never heard of? Probably shit.
Secondly, if anyone is bothered enough it takes two minutes to find the article that you found.

And lastly....America is greedy. The big fat rich bastards are always going to win if the people stay lazy.

Okay, people should definitely avoid food that comes with a label that's half unrecognizable chemicals. That's a good point. I just don't think most people even think to do that, because we're not really taught or trained to do that. At least that's what I think.

Americans for the most part are rather giving people, and often, OFTEN far too trusting. The greed is coming from the corporations, who over here literally can be sued if they don't do everything within the law to earn as much profit for their shareholders as they humanly can.

Americans also aren't lazy -- we work longer hours and take fewer vacations than people in any Western European country. Unfortunately, that doesn't leave as much time for protesting for fewer chemicals in food. Or shorter work hours. Which I think is exactly how the corporate bosses like it.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Okay, I’ll just say this, if there’s a food label on an item you’re buying that you can’t pronounce or have never heard of? Probably shit.
Secondly, if anyone is bothered enough it takes two minutes to find the article that you found.

And lastly....America is greedy. The big fat rich bastards are always going to win if the people stay lazy.

Okay, people should definitely avoid food that comes with a label that's half unrecognizable chemicals. That's a good point. I just don't think most people even think to do that, because we're not really taught or trained to do that. At least that's what I think.

Americans for the most part are rather giving people, and often, OFTEN far too trusting. The greed is coming from the corporations, who over here literally can be sued if they don't do everything within the law to earn as much profit for their shareholders as they humanly can.

Americans also aren't lazy -- we work longer hours and take fewer vacations than people in any Western European country. Unfortunately, that doesn't leave as much time for protesting for fewer chemicals in food. Or shorter work hours. Which I think is exactly how the corporate bosses like it.

That’s a sad state of affairs.
Perhaps if people ATE better, they would THINK better....

But of course, as you said, the rich corporations don’t want that. Do they?


Somehow, somewhere...there’s a message, in what you’ve just said, that people don’t or can’t, hear.

eddie wrote:Okay, I’ll just say this, if there’s a food label on an item you’re buying that you can’t pronounce or have never heard of? Probably shit.
Secondly, if anyone is bothered enough it takes two minutes to find the article that you found.

And lastly....America is greedy. The big fat rich bastards are always going to win if the people stay lazy.

I rarely eat anything out of a box or that's already prepared. At least at home. I eat out a lot so there's no telling what I'm getting there, but most restaurants dont use food from a box.

If you shop in the meat and produce department, there isn't really a need to read the labels.

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Okay, I’ll just say this, if there’s a food label on an item you’re buying that you can’t pronounce or have never heard of? Probably shit.
Secondly, if anyone is bothered enough it takes two minutes to find the article that you found.

And lastly....America is greedy. The big fat rich bastards are always going to win if the people stay lazy.

Okay, people should definitely avoid food that comes with a label that's half unrecognizable chemicals. That's a good point. I just don't think most people even think to do that, because we're not really taught or trained to do that. At least that's what I think.

Americans for the most part are rather giving people, and often, OFTEN far too trusting. The greed is coming from the corporations, who over here literally can be sued if they don't do everything within the law to earn as much profit for their shareholders as they humanly can.

Americans also aren't lazy -- we work longer hours and take fewer vacations than people in any Western European country. Unfortunately, that doesn't leave as much time for protesting for fewer chemicals in food. Or shorter work hours. Which I think is exactly how the corporate bosses like it.

That’s a sad state of affairs.
Perhaps if people ATE better, they would THINK better....

But of course, as you said, the rich corporations don’t want that. Do they?


Somehow, somewhere...there’s a message, in what you’ve just said, that people don’t or can’t, hear.

Corporations want people to be just sick enough to need their medications, just well enough to work 40 hours per week at minimum, just happy enough not to revolt, too distracted to pay attention, and with too little free time to be able to protest what corporations do.

I don't say this because I think corporations are evil -- I say this because all these things make more money for corporations and/or protect the current system in which they're making so much money.

Corporations want people to be tired. Tired people haven’t the energy to revolt.

eddie wrote:Corporations want people to be tired. Tired people haven’t the energy to revolt.

Yep, too tired to do anything besides go home from work and distract themselves with shit TV.

eddie wrote:Corporations want people to be tired. Tired people haven’t the energy to revolt.

Then don't give them your money.

I am surprised that all these low sugar/diet brands of fizzy pop are portrayed as being healthy... when they all contain high levels of the dangerous artificial sweetener 'aspartame'...

Tommy Monk wrote:I am surprised that all these low sugar/diet brands of fizzy pop are portrayed as being healthy... when they all contain high levels of the dangerous artificial sweetener 'aspartame'...

Aspartame isn't too harmful in small-enough doses. I'm pretty sure the only cancer it caused in lab rats was when they were fed what would be the equivalent of a human being eating several sacks of aspartame daily.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I am surprised that all these low sugar/diet brands of fizzy pop are portrayed as being healthy... when they all contain high levels of the dangerous artificial sweetener 'aspartame'...

Aspartame isn't too harmful in small-enough doses. I'm pretty sure the only cancer it caused in lab rats was when they were fed what would be the equivalent of a human being eating several sacks of aspartame daily.

Any chance of you backing up your claim with some evidence?


But besides that... isnt there already the argument that drinking sugar based fizzy drinks, in moderation, is harmless anyway...?


Also... myself not being a usual fizzy pop drinker... I recently tried to buy a bottle of regular lemonade to go as a mixer with a bottle of spirit that I had bought as a rare treat... and all the ones I looked at had aspartame in them...


I don't want that shit in my drink... so where is my choice...?

the chemical with the largest amount in almost all foods is Dihydrogen Monoxide

Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:


Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
Contributes to soil erosion.
Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.

What are some uses of Dihydrogen Monoxide?
Despite the known dangers of DHMO, it continues to be used daily by industry, government, and even in private homes across the U.S. and worldwide. Some of the well-known uses of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:

as an industrial solvent and coolant,
in nuclear power plants,
by the U.S. Navy in the propulsion systems of some older vessels,
by elite athletes to improve performance,
in the production of Styrofoam,
in biological and chemical weapons manufacture,
in the development of genetically engineering crops and animals,
as a spray-on fire suppressant and retardant,
in so-called "family planning" or "reproductive health" clinics,
as a major ingredient in many home-brewed bombs,
as a byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion in furnaces and air conditioning compressor operation,
in cult rituals,
by the Church of Scientology on their members and their members' families (although surprisingly, many members recently have contacted DHMO.org to vehemently deny such use),
by both the KKK and the NAACP during rallies and marches,
by members of Congress who are under investigation for financial corruption and inappropriate IM behavior,
by kids who play Beyblades,
by the clientele at a number of bath houses in New York City and San Francisco,
historically, in Hitler's death camps in Nazi Germany, and in prisons in Turkey, Serbia, Croatia, Libya, Iraq and Iran,
in World War II prison camps in Japan, and in prisons in China, for various forms of torture,
during many recent religious and ethnic wars in the Middle East,
by many terrorist organizations including al Qaeda,
in community swimming pools to maintain chemical balance,
in day care centers, purportedly for sanitary purposes,
by software engineers, including those producing DICOM software and other DICOM software tools,
by popular computer science professors,
by aspiring young adult fiction writers and mental health advocates,
by international travel bloggers,
by the semi-divine King Bhumibol of Thailand and his many devoted young working girls in Bangkok,
by the British Chiropractic Association and the purveyors of the bogus treatments that the BCA promotes,
by commodities giant Trafigura in their well-publicized and widely-known toxic-waste dumping activities in Ivory Coast,
in animal research laboratories, and
in pesticide production and distribution.

What you may find surprising are some of the products and places where DHMO is used, but which for one reason or another, are not normally made part of public presentations on the dangers to the lives of our family members and friends. Among these startling uses are:

as an additive to food products, including jarred baby food and baby formula, and even in many soups, carbonated beverages and supposedly "all-natural" fruit juices
in cough medicines and other liquid pharmaceuticals,
in spray-on oven cleaners,
in shampoos, shaving creams, deodorants and numerous other bathroom products,
in bathtub bubble products marketed to children,
as a preservative in grocery store fresh produce sections,
in the production of beer by all the major beer distributors,
in the coffee available at major coffee houses in the US and abroad,
in Formula One race cars, although its use is regulated by the Formula One Racing Commission, and
as a target of ongoing NASA planetary and stellar research.



One of the most surprising facts recently revealed about Dihydrogen Monoxide contamination is in its use as a food and produce "decontaminant." Studies have shown that even after careful washing, food and produce that has been contaminated by DHMO remains tainted by DHMO.

From https://web.archive.org/web/20190223034024/http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I am surprised that all these low sugar/diet brands of fizzy pop are portrayed as being healthy... when they all contain high levels of the dangerous artificial sweetener 'aspartame'...

Aspartame isn't too harmful in small-enough doses. I'm pretty sure the only cancer it caused in lab rats was when they were fed what would be the equivalent of a human being eating several sacks of aspartame daily.

Any chance of you backing up your claim with some evidence?


But besides that... isnt there already the argument that drinking sugar based fizzy drinks, in moderation, is harmless anyway...?


Also... myself not being a usual fizzy pop drinker... I recently tried to buy a bottle of regular lemonade to go as a mixer with a bottle of spirit that I had bought as a rare treat... and all the ones I looked at had aspartame in them...


I don't want that shit in my drink... so where is my choice...?

“One way aspartame and other nonnutritive sweeteners may affect body weight is by increasing people's appetite, which may lead to a higher food consumption.

A 2013 review published in Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism cites several animal studies that report a link between regular intake of nonnutritive sweeteners and increased food intake.

The review suggests that sweeteners may increase appetite by disrupting the signaling process that usually occurs when a person eats foods with more calories.

Sweet tastes typically signal to the body that food is entering the gut. The body then expects to receive calories and signals when eating should stop by making a person feel full or satiated”

More on link https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322266.php#appetite

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I am surprised that all these low sugar/diet brands of fizzy pop are portrayed as being healthy... when they all contain high levels of the dangerous artificial sweetener 'aspartame'...

Aspartame isn't too harmful in small-enough doses. I'm pretty sure the only cancer it caused in lab rats was when they were fed what would be the equivalent of a human being eating several sacks of aspartame daily.

Any chance of you backing up your claim with some evidence?


But besides that... isnt there already the argument that drinking sugar based fizzy drinks, in moderation, is harmless anyway...?


Also... myself not being a usual fizzy pop drinker... I recently tried to buy a bottle of regular lemonade to go as a mixer with a bottle of spirit that I had bought as a rare treat... and all the ones I looked at had aspartame in them...


I don't want that shit in my drink... so where is my choice...?

https://www.healthline.com/health/food-safety/aspartame-cancer#aspartame-and-cancer

So... where is my choice in buying a fizzy pop that doesn't contain this aspartame chemical shit...!?

you aint got one, but then fizzy pop drinking isnt a protected characteristic, you have no "right to a choice" you have the right to make on if the choice is there, but no right of expectation of a choice being given......

besides tommy, you got bigger problems than a bit of aspartame.

Victorismyhero wrote:you aint got one, but then fizzy pop drinking isnt a protected characteristic, you have no "right to a choice" you have the right to make on if the choice is there, but no right of expectation of a choice being given......

besides tommy, you got bigger problems than a bit of aspartame.

Can you explain what you mean by that...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

So... where is my choice in buying a fizzy pop that doesn't contain this aspartame chemical shit...!?

Can't help you there.

Tommy, lots of fizzy drinks have NO aspartame in them.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:you aint got one, but then fizzy pop drinking isnt a protected characteristic, you have no "right to a choice" you have the right to make on if the choice is there, but no right of expectation of a choice being given......

besides tommy, you got bigger problems than a bit of aspartame.

Can you explain what you mean by that...?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50504131

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

So... where is my choice in buying a fizzy pop that doesn't contain this aspartame chemical shit...!?

Can't help you there.

The choice of a non aspartame fizzy pop has been removed...


As it appears to be the case now that all the regular/sugar versions of fizzy pop all now contain aspartame...


Not that anyone would know about this change... without actually checking the ingredients labelling...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:
Can't help you there.

The choice of a non aspartame fizzy pop has been removed...


As it appears to be the case now that all the regular/sugar versions of fizzy pop all now contain aspartame...


Not that anyone would know about this change... without actually checking the ingredients labelling...

We can get sodas from Mexico that have the real thing in them.

In Australia, there were big complaints when Coca Cola Cola and Pepsi were threatening to remove the original/traditional drinks at the same time as they were introducing the artificially-sweetened ones.

Today you find the "original" flavours (those dosed with sucrose and glucose) being sold side-by-side with the new tar coal/petroleum sweetened versions..

Not that it would worry me --  I would be lucky to drink those 'soda' drinks a couple of times a year, anyways.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

So... where is my choice in buying a fizzy pop that doesn't contain this aspartame chemical shit...!?

Can't help you there.

The choice of a non aspartame fizzy pop has been removed...


As it appears to be the case now that all the regular/sugar versions of fizzy pop all now contain aspartame...


Not that anyone would know about this change... without actually checking the ingredients labelling...

I don’t know where you shop but you can can still buy full fat fizzy drinks anywhere.
Absolutely anywhere.

Victorismyhero wrote:the chemical with the largest amount in almost all foods is Dihydrogen Monoxide

Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:


   Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
   Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
   Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
   DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
   Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
   Contributes to soil erosion.
   Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
   Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
   Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
   Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
   Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
   Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
   Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.

What are some uses of Dihydrogen Monoxide?
Despite the known dangers of DHMO, it continues to be used daily by industry, government, and even in private homes across the U.S. and worldwide. Some of the well-known uses of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:

   as an industrial solvent and coolant,
   in nuclear power plants,
   by the U.S. Navy in the propulsion systems of some older vessels,
   by elite athletes to improve performance,
   in the production of Styrofoam,
   in biological and chemical weapons manufacture,
   in the development of genetically engineering crops and animals,
   as a spray-on fire suppressant and retardant,
   in so-called "family planning" or "reproductive health" clinics,
   as a major ingredient in many home-brewed bombs,
   as a byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion in furnaces and air conditioning compressor operation,
   in cult rituals,
   by the Church of Scientology on their members and their members' families (although surprisingly, many members recently have contacted DHMO.org to vehemently deny such use),
   by both the KKK and the NAACP during rallies and marches,
   by members of Congress who are under investigation for financial corruption and inappropriate IM behavior,
   by  kids who play Beyblades,
   by the clientele at a number of bath houses in New York City and San Francisco,
   historically, in Hitler's death camps in Nazi Germany, and in prisons in Turkey, Serbia, Croatia, Libya, Iraq and Iran,
   in World War II prison camps in Japan, and in prisons in China, for various forms of torture,
   during many recent religious and ethnic wars in the Middle East,
   by many terrorist organizations including al Qaeda,
   in community swimming pools to maintain chemical balance,
   in day care centers, purportedly for sanitary purposes,
   by software engineers, including those producing DICOM software and other DICOM software tools,
   by popular computer science professors,
   by aspiring young adult fiction writers and mental health advocates,
   by international travel bloggers,
   by the semi-divine King Bhumibol of Thailand and his many devoted young working girls in Bangkok,
   by the British Chiropractic Association and the purveyors of the bogus treatments that the BCA promotes,
   by commodities giant Trafigura in their well-publicized and widely-known toxic-waste dumping activities in Ivory Coast,
   in animal research laboratories, and
   in pesticide production and distribution.

What you may find surprising are some of the products and places where DHMO is used, but which for one reason or another, are not normally made part of public presentations on the dangers to the lives of our family members and friends. Among these startling uses are:

   as an additive to food products, including jarred baby food and baby formula, and even in many soups, carbonated beverages and supposedly "all-natural" fruit juices
   in cough medicines and other liquid pharmaceuticals,
   in spray-on oven cleaners,
   in shampoos, shaving creams, deodorants and numerous other bathroom products,
   in bathtub bubble products marketed to children,
   as a preservative in grocery store fresh produce sections,
   in the production of beer by all the major beer distributors,
   in the coffee available at major coffee houses in the US and abroad,
   in Formula One race cars, although its use is regulated by the Formula One Racing Commission, and
   as a target of ongoing NASA planetary and stellar research.



One of the most surprising facts recently revealed about Dihydrogen Monoxide contamination is in its use as a food and produce "decontaminant." Studies have shown that even after careful washing, food and produce that has been contaminated by DHMO remains tainted by DHMO.

From https://web.archive.org/web/20190223034024/http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

And, it can cause the disfuguring and discombulating 'fuzzy hair syndrome' during humid weather.