A Slow Death
Nothing short of disturbing, the memory foam mattress industry continues to dodge concerns about the safety of their own products. Recently, in 2021, a class action lawsuit occurred as the safety of Zinus’ products came into question. Specifically, fiberglass, an invasive material in their ‘bed in the box’ product, deserves second thought. This culprit known as fiberglass possesses a plastic texture and appearance coupled with the strength of glass deemed for its fire-resistant capabilities. Remiss in its practicality for bed usage during its manufacturing process, the class action lawsuit claimed families spent an average of $15,000 to remove all fiberglass. A victim described the experience as having “dust settle everywhere… only it was glass” with complications of itching and coughing, ultimately the side effects becoming so debilitating that the family lived in a hotel until all fiberglass was removed from the home. Another family spent “tens of thousands tens of dollars in property damage and spent more than $20,000 for professional remediation services after buying a Zinus memory foam mattress.” As it stands, Zinus’ product, their queen sized ‘Green Tea’ memory foam mattress, attracts more than 130,000 viewers, rated at 4.4 out of 5 stars, and trades at approximately $310 on Amazon.
Rather than take onus regarding the health concerns of their product(s), Zinus deflected blame on the consumers. Zinus believes consumers time after time damage the outer cover without heeding to the products labels, leading to fiberglass disbursement in the home. Furthermore, a statement from Zinus reads “The material that we use to comply with fire safety regulations is standard in the mattress industry, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission has found that this material is not considered hazardous.” To self purport this toxic material as standard across the industry epitomizes the fallacy in a world with an increasing reliance on low-cost material.
Unfortunately, petroleum products don’t follow the sentiment of our legal system, ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ Zinus defends their use of fiberglass and other petroleum based products in this disparaging manner. Since memory foam has become the staple of the industry in the modern era, the 2015 report published by the EPA clearly needs more light drawn to it. The 800 page report documents how flame retardants in polyurethane foams derails human health, leading to a slew of symptoms such as those associated with the respiratory system, immune system, eyes and skin. To the inconvenience of the industry’s best selling polyurethane foam, the EPA’s report found flame retardants increase the odds of developing cancer and neurobehavioral disorders, like autism. The phenomenon of adolescents developing neurobehavioral disorders at alarming rates remains prevalent in modern society, and a vast majority of the burden can be placed on petrochemicals and industry’s increasing reliance on them to make a wider margin of profit. Undoubtedly, the usage of petrochemicals in our bedding necessitates a more serious approach in lieu of the EPA’s report nearly a decade ago.
A miniscule 5-10% of cancers come from genetics, thus our environment cannot be overlooked. Our environment remains the difference between health and disease. Our indoor environment is 10-100 times more toxic than the air outside, leading to more chemicals coming into contact with our skin and lungs. A natural solution to this toxic indoor environment comes in the form of substituting a memory foam mattress for a natural rubber organic mattress. Walter Bader, author of Toxic Bedrooms, attests that a natural rubber organic mattress produces 95% less chemical emissions than its counterpart, memory foam. Resorting to material that has roamed our world since the dawn of time, rubber comes from the sap of trees, and has advantageous properties such as elasticity and strength. Unfortunately, most people consume an industrialized, highly processed version, but let it be known that natural rubber exists in a non-toxic form from the very trees of this earth.
Proponents of petrochemical based items, such as memory foam mattresses argue there’s no adequate alternative. This myth couldn’t possibly be further from the truth. In addition to the natural rubber organic mattress previously mentioned, options include pure organic wool and certified organic cotton. Independent third party testing ensures delivery on the promise of top tier ingredients. These methods also stray from dyes, which when added to a product in a synthetic manner, promote symptoms such as difficulty breathing and burning sensations to the eyes and throat.
Approximately 2,000 new chemicals get introduced to our environment on a yearly basis, yet the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviews only a minimum of 20 of those chemicals at a time, having a seven year deadline, resulting in industry having a cushion of five years to account for banning carcinogenic chemicals. Given the extensive timeframe the EPA has to evaluate such chemicals and make proper adjustments, this entire process exudes superficialness. No urgency in the process, and in the meanwhile, our livers are asked to detoxify at rates they have never before, straying away from homeostatic principles the human body thrives on.
This generation marks the first of its kind, one that will not outlive its previous generation. For quite some time now, scientists have elongated life spans through chemical means, but even the brightest minds cannot outsmart biology. Man made interventions take us only so far.
Our current system puts band aids on bullet holes. Symptomatic people get ignored. Interventions, guidelines, and policies only surface at the sight of an emergency. Our toxic laden world has become so normalized that it has drowned out the noise of our own common sense. Feeble leadership at the helm of petrochemical industries has promoted distrust and confusion, straying away from core business tenets such as integrity, responsibility, and transparency. Malfeasance will always concern the hierarchies, creating the need to vote with our dollar on an individual basis to enact change to move away from petrochemicals and back to our natural environment consisting of natural material, free from pesticide usage.
References
Doost, A. (2021). Texas families warn of possible bed-in-the-box mattress risks; class action lawsuit filed.https://www.kxan.com/investigations/texas-families-warn-of-possible-bed-in-the-box-mattress-risks-class-action-lawsuit-filed/
Fiberglass – A material guide | types, benefits, uses. Retrieved Apr 14, 2024, from https://www.vpcfiberglass.com/resources/why-fiberglass/
Petrochemical | industrial, manufacturing & energy applications | britannica. Retrieved Apr 14, 2024, from https://www.britannica.com/science/petrochemical
Revelation 19:8 – verse-by-verse bible commentary. Retrieved Apr 14, 2024, from https://www.studylight.org/commentary/revelation/19-8.html
TMHS 455: The surprising truth about cancer, carcinogens, & community – with guest dr. christian gonzalez (2021). (The Model Health Show Trans.).
The Gamer 2.0
SleepyCat
Coffee Lover 03
doglover7025
Snowman10
excellentstudent27
Gymrat
hockeyfan
holistic25
ilovebeesss
ilovemydog
The Gamer
Naturechild101
BreakingBad45
ravensfan8
temporal111
thatpersonoverthere
toetio
username1132005
Calm&Patient
webbwrestler135
Counterintuitive Spring 2024 
I am willing to spend 45 minutes on my edits. And yes — I’ll fix my references. Those were a placeholder just to bookmark where I got them from.
LikeLike
Cool. I’ll be looking in your text for the references to your sources.
LikeLike
This is overall excellent work, Holistic, but I do need to say one thing first: you certainly must HAVE but you haven’t IDENTIFIED a Worthy Opponent, and it doesn’t appear the sources you’ve listed will contain the strenuous claim that THE SCIENCE IS INSUFFICIENT.
Your persuasiveness will benefit from “taking down” some actual person or organization that has it coming.
LikeLike
Ordinarily, I leave copy-editing to the very last draft (if I’m given that opportunity), but since your argument and material are strong, and this may be your last chance to get the nitty-gritty from a college instructor, I’m going to suggest that you might benefit most from a “close reading” as they’re called.
Here are some irresistible items that distracted my admiration in your first few paragraphs.
—And they’d be right. “testing” could never equate to “disease,” but that’s what your syntax says.
—The closest thing to a correct version of your sentence that you can make with the words available is that “toxicity” doesn’t equate to “disease,” but that’s not actually what you meant either.
—I do know what you mean. But . . .
—Good sentence overall, but “consequences” do nothing but “ensue.” It’s their entire nature to ensue. Your phrase is as redundant as “the consequences that occur as a consequence.”
—You’re calling “testing” a “disease” again.
—A “multifactor approach” is in no way similar to an “ecosystem” as you mean the comparison. Would assessing the consequences of toxic petrochemicals require the examination of the myriad factors that affect the ecosystem? You bet.
—Where you position your “only” matters.
—Here you say they “only review,” which would indicate they don’t ban, or approve, or send out for a consult.
—What you mean, of course, is that they “review only 20” or so at a time.
—But you haven’t claimed that the EPA has named any standards, or that a named standard would obligate industry to comply, whatever that would mean.
—There’s a word for superficialness already. It’s superficiality.
—You’re trying to pair the plural “livers” with the singular “it.”
—Probably going for “thrives on” here.
—You need a person to be your individual. Your dangling modifier seems to describe a single petrochemical as health conscious.
Last-century diction here. Start your sentence with “Consumers” and the language will flow more naturally.
—Food is not a mechanism of ingestion. EATING is a mechanism of ingestion.
—Skin belongs in the conversation, and WE are remiss if we neglect it, but that doesn’t make skin remiss; it makes US remiss.
—By now you probably recognize that you’re saying “skin enters the bloodstream.”
—Our skin eats ideology?
—Has the ideology “only reached” (not penetrated, not convinced, not frightened consumers?) or has the ideology reached attention “only in recent years”?
—Eliminate repetition.
—It’s not actually the “processing of assessing” that’s counterintuitive, though, is it? It’s the delay. Assessing them is always intuitive.
—You’re making a strong claim here. Don’t confuse us.
LikeLike
Beautiful work finding and hobbling your Worthy Opponent, Holistic. Your argument gains sooooo much traction when its claims are directed at an industrial villain—and the parting blow about their strong sales and financial statements is wonderfully understated.
Big improvements here.
LikeLike