Upworthy's book GOOD PEOPLE, now available - take a look!

Shop
 Explore 

food and drug administration

Kids

Photos of school lunch tray in South Korea sparks debate about how American kids eat

It sure has adults' mouths watering, though.

Canva Photos

Kids in South Korea sometimes get served lobster tails with school lunch.

School lunch in the United States has a complicated history. While many of us who grew up in the 80s or 90s are nostalgic for some of the menu items we remember fondly (rectangle pizza, anyone?), some of the serving choices were bizarre. We really grew up with someone handing us a tray of pizza, french fries, chocolate milk, and soggy green beans every morning at 10:30am.

The offerings have improved somewhat over the years, but everything's still so... beige. The main choices are typically pizza, chicken nuggets, or some form of questionable ground beef like burgers or meatloaf. Some people are stunned when they find out that school lunches from around the world can look very different.

A photo of lunch served at a school in South Korea recently went viral and had everyone's mouth watering.

A user on Reddit posted the photos to r/pics where they immediately racked up over 17,000 upvotes.

The colors on the tray stick out immediately, most notably the noodles covered in creamy red sauce. But it's really the stuffed lobster tail that's the star of this particular tray; potentially lobster thermidor.

You expect to see some cultural differences in the food offerings in different countries. Korean food is inherently different than American food in a number of ways. But Americans love lobster! Yet can you imagine American schools serving lobster tail to kids under any circumstances?

Take a look at the mouth-watering spread here:

from pics

The response from mostly-American users was fascinating. Some were in awe while others rightly pointed out why a lunch like this would never fly in the USA.

One of the main sentiments was that school lunches in other countries often put ours to utter shame:

"I used to teach in Korea and the lunches were always amazing, the beef and quails egg stew was a constant highlight."

"I studied in Korea for 6 months on uni exchange. The food at the uni cafeteria looked just like this, and was 10/10. My private room at the uni lodge was $500USD for the WHOLE semester, and included unlimited food."

"I live in Spain and my kid's school invited the parents to taste lunch one day. It was fantastic. Also, at the end of each month they share a calendar of the meals that will be served during the next one, day by day. They're all balanced, and prepared with proximity food. They prepare specific meals for every kid with allergies/intolerances/any kind of dietary restriction, e.g. restrictions related to religion. They also share a list of dinner suggestions - again, for the whole month - so you have ideas for dinners that are healthy, easy, cheap, and tasty for kids. It's a public school."

"I am from a third world country where many public schools lack a ton of funding and even we have better more healthy lunches than the slop that’s given to US students. I know because I went to school in the US and also in my home country."

"America hates its f*cking kids. It will always mistreat them and deny them opportunities."

"Lobster as a school lunch??? I need to go back to elementary school... I'll quit work for education and a lunch like that!"

school lunch, food, school, kids, nutrition, health, elementary school, politics, government, FDA Now here's a balanced and nutritious meal. Giphy

Others, while impressed with the selection, had their doubts about if American schools could ever adopt something like this:

"This lunch is orders of magnitude better then US school lunches. And most American kids would utterly hate it."

"American kids have no palette! It’s all chicken nuggets and mac & cheese! ... I know some kids that would starve rather than try anything on that tray."

Some pointed out that those metal chopsticks would likely be used as a weapon almost immediately, and discontinued ASAP.

Americans, as a whole, have a dreadful diet devoid of enough nutrition and it causes catastrophic health problems in the longterm. For clues as to why, you can look at what we feed our kids — and why.

school lunch, food, school, kids, nutrition, health, elementary school, politics, government, FDA It's normal for kids to be picky eaters. When it continues into adulthood, it can be a root cause of health problems. Photo by MD Duran on Unsplash

No, most American kids probably wouldn't like lobster tail. But there is a lot that goes into how our palette develops that might help explain it.

For starters, fresh produce and lean proteins are extremely expensive in America. It's far more cost-effective to pump people full of cheap, empty calories and sugar. School lunch used to be cooked fresh every day in the schools before major government budget cuts forced districts to more heavily on lean on frozen or reheated options. Kids get used to chicken nuggies all day every day from a young age!

The irony is that school lunches in American, while not overly exciting, at least meet some basic nutritional guidelines. But they're not free for everyone, and even kids who qualify for free or reduced lunch may not end up participating due to stigma or red-tape. When parents on a shoestring budget have to buy their own lunch supplies, things can get a lot worse than meatloaf and green beans. We all knew a few kids in school who had Pop Tarts for lunch every day. To be fair, we were all jealous at the time.

And finally, Americans sure love to get fired up about our "right" to eat like crap. When Michelle Obama tried to clean up the school lunch program, she ran into massive pushback. RFK Jr. wants to do his own version of it, and we'll see how that goes.

The viral photo from South Korea shows what might be possible with a few key cultural and political shifts. Treating feeding our kids more like "preventive medicine" versus a cost to manage would definitely be a start.

This article originally appeared in May.

From Your Site Articles

kids

Science

Scientist demonstrates the bizarre, explosive method used to determine calories in food

I've been eating food my whole life and never knew this!

Canva Photos

Food energy is real energy, and it can be measured as such.

About ten years ago I started working out for the first time in my life, and with it, paying attention to the food I put in my body for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. I never knew much before that about calories, other than the tired "2000 a day" guideline. I could hardly tell you about macronutrients, or how much protein an active person should get. And so, later in my life, I had quite an education.

But there's still a lot that I don't know, apparently, because it wasn't until very recently that I learned where calories come from; or rather, how they're tallied up for inclusion on a food label. Of course, I am familiar with the idea that you can always count up the different ingredients in a meal and their known nutritional values. For example, if you're baking, it's easy to find out the calories in one cup of flour, a tablespoon of sugar, and so on.

But how are the calories in base foods even calculated? And furthermore, how do we know for sure how much protein, fat, or carbs are in certain foods?

It "blew" my mind when I learned that food scientists have a fascinating process for determining the amount of energy contained in different foods. It involves a strange machine called a "bomb calorimeter."

food, nutrition, calories, healthy eating, protein, fats, carbs, vitamins, minerals, eating, science, food science An old bomb calorimeter from the 1960sSeth/Flickr

We all know that food gives us energy, but you've likely never thought of food energy in the same terms as the other different forms of energy like lights, heat, electricity, etc. I know I had never thought of it like energy energy.

But that's exactly what it is, and calories are a very specific measure of that energy.

So in order to determine how many calories are in a certain food, ingredient, or meal — get this — scientists literally blow it up and measure the results of the explosion.

How cool is that!?

In the video below, scientists from the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University show the fascinating process from start to finish.

In the experiment, the team prepares a Christmas dinner plate of turkey, gravy, and potatoes. The first step to determining the calories in the meal is to "homogenize it" or blend it into smithereens, destroying any large chunks and turning the meal into a smooth, near-liquid. Yum!

"Then, over the course of three days we slowly remove all the moisture from it in a freeze drier," says Dr. Sue Roberts. Imagine turning that gooey slop into something similar to the consistency of astronaut food.

The dried samples are then compressed into extremely dense pellets about the size of a Tums antacid.

Now here comes the Parr 6200 "bomb" calorimeter. The very precisely measured pellet-ized portion of the original dinner is put into a chamber and lowered into some water inside the machine. An electrical charge is then applied to the food to "explode it."

Why the water? The calorimeter is able to measure the exact temperature of the water before and after the food explosion. When you look at the actual definition of a calorie, which according to Merriam-Webster is: "the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one kilogram of water one degree Celsius," it all starts to make sense. Take the temperature of the water after the explosion and you can determine exactly how much energy was contained in the food pellet based on the temperature increase. Amazing!

- YouTube www.youtube.com

The calorimeter first came about in the 1800s. Even then, our understand of heat, energy, and food science was extremely limited.

As recently as the 1700s, scientists generally believed heat was made of some kind of weightless gas, which they called "caloric."

The theory was disproven in 1799 when Sir Humphrey Davy, an English chemist, rubbed two pieces of ice together in a vacuum (which contains no air or gas) and was able to generate friction heat, thus melting the ice. It was roughly around the same time that Antoine Lavoisier and Pierre Simon de la Place developed the first calorimeter.

Calorimeters, and the Calorie itself, weren't regularly used for food until the late 1800s.

As cool as it is (and it is extremely cool) exploding food in a bomb calorimeter isn't the most common practice today.

Frankly, it's usually not necessary when you can estimate nutritional values in other ways. More common today is the Atwater System, which estimates calories based on the nutritional breakdown of a food item as such:

Four kcals (calories) for one gram of protein
Four kcals for one gram of carbohydrates
Nine kcals for one gram of fat
Seven kcals for one gram of alcohol

All of these elements can be tested and measured in different, fascinating ways. Protein is counted by measuring the nitrogen released from food after putting it through some an artificial digestive process. Fats are measured by weighing the food, then stripping the fats away with ether, and weighing it again.

Carbs are the most complicated and thus are often measured by subtracting the percentage of proteins and fats. The remainders, by definition, should be carbohydrates.

food, nutrition, calories, healthy eating, protein, fats, carbs, vitamins, minerals, eating, science, food science This food is on FIRE! Giphy

And, of course, bomb calorimeters have lots of different uses besides determining the calories in the newest line of flavored Doritos. They can be used to test the energy potential of alternative fuels, find more efficient animal feeds, and analyze samples of oil or coal for their potency.

Understanding this process kind of changes the way I look at food. You can't really see the energy in a bag of chips, let's say, but maybe you can imagine the way it might heat a pot of water if it exploded! It makes the numbers on the back of a nutritional label a little more tangible and real, and can maybe lead to more mindful and intuitive eating practices.

Ultimately, though, there is so much more to food than the calories it contains. There are the nutrients, like the proteins, carbs, and fats — the micronutrients like vitamins and minerals that our bodies need. Some people like to know as little as possible about the inner workings of our food and focus purely on their enjoyment of the making, eating, and sharing. But if you're like me, you like to know the science behind food production, and how and why food powers our bodies the way it does. That's all part of the fun.

From Your Site Articles

food

Trump wants to get rid of 'wasteful' regulations. Here's why that's of concern.

True

While on the campaign trail, President-elect Donald Trump made it clear what he plans to do to regulations.

"I would say 70% of regulations can go," he was quoted as saying at a town hall meeting. According to his website, his vision for regulations is to ask all department heads to submit a list of "every wasteful and unnecessary regulation which kills jobs" — and then to eliminate them.

The site indicates an exception for regulations regarding "public safety." But the tricky thing is, the public, businesses, and the government don't always agree which regulations are necessary for public safety.

Image via iStock.

History shows us that many necessary regulations that we take for granted today were initially opposed by corporations that said they'd hurt jobs and destroy the industry. Fortunately, in these cases, regulation won the day.

Here are three prominent times that public safety regulations won out and we all benefitted — and not at the expense of business either.

1. Food and drug labelling laws

Image via iStock.

At the turn of the 20th century, the food and drug industries were virtually uncontrolled.

Chemical preservatives weren’t tested for safety; toxic colors were frequently used; milk cows weren't tested for tuberculosis; and opium, morphine, heroin, and cocaine were often ingredients in popular medicines — and there were no labels to warn consumers of their presence.

Image via Library of Congress.

According to the FDA, Dr. Harvey W. Wiley, chief of the Division of Chemistry, was one of the first to crusade for safety laws in regards to food and medicine.

He started volunteer "hygiene table studies" where young men would eat food containing chemical preservatives (these trials became popularly known as "poison squads") to demonstrate that the ingredients were harmful. He wanted to show the public that these preservatives should only be used when necessary and that none should be used without informing the consumer on the label.

But it wasn't an easy task.

A "poison squad.” Image via the U.S. Food and Drug Administration/Flickr.

Whiskey distillers and patent medicine firms (the largest advertisers in the country) vehemently opposed a federal food and drug law.

They said it would put them out of business, and they argued that the government had no business policing what people ate, drank, or used as medicine.

A political cartoon pays homage to Wiley, who led the fight to institute a federal law to prohibit adulterated and misbranded food and drugs. Image via the U.S. Food and Drug Administration/Flickr.

In large part because of this and other opposition, the incremental progress toward food labeling took over a century. Many laws were passed and regulations approved that gave consumers information about what they were putting into their bodies, but each was met with resistance. Concessions had to be made when passing them so that revisions, amendments, and new versions were later needed to protect consumers.

Food labelling as we know it today wasn’t required until 1990. By then, public opinion had shifted, and it was recognized that these laws and regulations were helping public safety.

2. Mandatory seat belts

Image via iStock.

In 1970, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations proposed that all vehicles include an automatic restraint system.

The auto industry, led by Ford, GM, and Chrysler, balked, saying that things like seat belts and airbags would hurt the manufacturing industry by increasing costs.

In one leaked 1971 private meeting between Ford senior executives and President Richard Nixon that was caught on tape, Ford Motor Co. chairman Henry Ford II complained that "the price of a Pinto ... [would go] up something like 50% in the next three years with the inflation part of it, but that's not the big part of it. It's the safety requirements, the emission requirements."

The vehement opposition to the legislation led to over a decade of delays — until public pressure began to mount.

"When I was an administrator, I did a lot of crash testing of cars, and it showed how the occupant is thrown around in the interior of the car when the crash occurs. And people began to understand because they could see it — visually — how violent auto crashes are," says Joan Claybrook, the former head of the National Highway Safety Administration under President Jimmy Carter and former head of Public Citizen.

"So when the auto companies wouldn’t put provisions in the car or opposed them, the public began to understand that they were not helping the public by doing that. It was essentially allowing people to be killed," she adds.

Image via iStock.

It wasn't until 1984 that states began requiring seat belt use (starting with New York). By 1989, most states had seat belt laws in place.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, seat belts have saved an estimated 275,000 lives over the last 40 years.

"What regulation does is that it assures that every new car that’s manufactured meets certain minimum standards," says Claybrook, “If you don’t have regulation, the higher-income wealthier people in the country will demand that their more luxury cars have safety provisions and the rest of the public, in their less expensive cards, often don’t get them — or don’t get them for years.”

3. Banning smoking on airlines

Image via iStock.

It took almost 30 years for smoking to be banned on all commercial airlines and flights — despite health risks to both crew and passengers.

Tobacco companies actively fought any and all regulations against their products well into the 1990s, even though warning labels were first mandated back in 1965 — a year after the surgeon general's report on the health risks had come out — and the dangers of smoking were becoming well-established.

Airlines also worried that their customers wouldn't fly if they couldn’t smoke on long flights and that losing all their smoking customers could hurt business. The airlines thought it would be impossible to ban smoking completely, even if flight attendants and nonsmokers were advocating for it.

"Suitcases, uniforms, hair — all stunk from cigarette smoke," Tracy Shear, a flight attendant with U.S. Airways, shared with The New York Times. "And it’s astounding that we didn’t have more cabin fires."

Image via iStock.

In 1990, despite bitter resistance by the tobacco industry and after years of pressure from the Association of Flight Attendants, smoking was banned on all but a few domestic flights that were over six hours.

It took another 10 years for a federal law to be passed outlawing smoking on all flights by U.S. airlines — and interestingly, the move to make all flights smoke-free was celebrated by employees, customers, and even the airlines themselves. Customers didn't stop flying because they couldn't smoke — in fact, everyone was thankful for the clean air in the cabin.

Today, the battle over regulations is far from over.

Lobbyists and businesses still campaign every day for deregulation, saying that meddling from Uncle Sam will hurt them. Some of the loudest opposition comes from oil and energy companies fighting regulations to mitigate pollution and environmental damage — despite the frequent environmental disasters that occur and the looming threat of climate change.

Image via iStock.

Like tax cuts for the wealthy, we are told that deregulation is what's best for business and our economy because that is how innovation happens. When profits are good, they say, the benefits will "trickle down" to the rest of us. But time and time again, we have seen the opposite. Regulation doesn't kill businesses — it just makes them safer.

So as a new president takes office, it’s important to remember that regulation "equalizes the safety protections for everybody," as Claybrook explains. These laws are necessary to protect people’s lives. Perhaps one day we will think that environmental regulations are just as common sense as we now find seat belts.

Heroes

Environmentalists call these 12 chemicals the Dirty Dozen. Here's why.

Warning: Abbreviations ahead!

True

You may have heard of the Dirty Dozen — 12 chemicals that activists have identified as potentially harmful that we regularly come in contact with in our home, health, and beauty products.

Over the past decade, a lot of science and research has gone into figuring out the long- and short-term health effects of products we use in our homes and on our bodies. The jury is still out on most of them, but some of the findings are worth a closer look.

In 2010, Canada's David Suzuki Foundation did a study on the 12 chemicals and compounds they felt consumers should try to avoid. Since the study was published, some governments have banned some of the chemicals and some companies are reformulating their products so they don't contain them.

Are the Dirty Dozen hanging out in your home somewhere? Here's why these ingredients are on the list:

1. BHA (butylated hydroxyanisole) and BHT (butylated hydroxytoluene)

These two preservatives can be found in moisturizers and cream makeups. Image via iStock.

These two synthetic antioxidants are often used as preservatives in cosmetics (mostly lipsticks and moisturizers) and as food preservatives. They're also potentially allergenic, particularly on the skin.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies BHA and BHT as possible human carcinogens, and the European Commission on Endocrine Disruptors lists BHA as a Category 1 priority substance, citing evidence that it interferes with hormone function in mice and rats.

Neither BHA nor BHT are restricted in the United States. California includes BHA on its list of chemicals that must be listed on product ingredient labels as potentially cancer-causing.

2. Coal tar dyes: p-phenylenediamine and colors listed as "CI" followed by a five-digit number

Coal tar (shown above) is a petroleum byproduct mixed with other chemicals. Image via iStock.

Coal tar dyes (chemical name p-phenylenediamine) are very popular in the cosmetic industry — particularly in hair dye — because they provide rich, long-lasting color. But, like a lot of petroleum-based products, some researchers and activists fear there may be health risks from exposure to them.

Research has linked coal tar dyes to tumors in laboratory mice, and other researchers may have found a connection between long-term use of hair dyes and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is unconvinced; it's waiting to see more research before making a firm decision on how to classify coal tar dyes.

The European Union (EU), by comparison, has taken a precautionary approach and classifies coal tar dyes as moderately toxic to humans.

Helpful hint: If you're looking at labels, you can tell if a coal tar dye is used in a product by looking for the the name p-phenylenediamine or the abbreviations FD&C or D&C followed by a five-digit color index number.

3. Diethanolamine (DEA), cocamide DEA, and lauramide DEA

Some shampoos get an extra kick from DEA. Image via iStock.

Consumers love creamy or sudsy personal care products. DEA helps with that. For personal care products, it's most common in moisturizers, sunscreens, and shampoos. As a cleaning product additive, it can be found in soaps and cleansers looking for an added bubbly kick.

Activists became concerned about DEA after some research found that DEA can cause skin and eye irritation, and some high doses have caused liver cancers in to laboratory animals. There are no restrictions on the use of DEA in the United States, but the EU does not allow its use in cosmetics, citing the risk of long-term exposure.

4. Dibutyl phthalate (DBP)

Some "no-chip" nail polishes may get their staying power from DBP. Image via iStock.

Dibutyl phthalate has lots of uses. It can keep nail polishes from chipping, help keep PVC flexible, and be a solvent for dyes or fragrances. The reason activists put it on the list of ingredients to keep an eye on is because in a laboratory study, researchers found it absorbs through the skin and can "enhance the capacity of other chemicals to cause mutations." Other research found it interfered with hormone function, maybe even for pregnant women. There's still a lot of research to be done, so the U.S. hasn't put any restrictions on DBP; the EU, though, does not allow it in cosmetic products.

5. Formaldehyde-releasing preservatives

These are medical sutures stored in formaldehyde, but lots of beauty and personal care products use chemicals that may release formaldehyde over time. Image via iStock.

Formaldehyde has a lot of uses in personal care, cleaning products, and industrial construction. It is found as a preservative in cosmetics and an active ingredient in some toilet bowl cleaners. It can also be released from a wide range of industrial products including some permanent-press fabrics and vinyl and wood-laminate flooring.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) limits the amount of formaldehyde in some construction materials because on its own, formaldehyde is a carcinogen and is toxic to humans if ingested.

When personal care products or cosmetics are said to contain formaldehyde, what they usually contain are actually formaldehyde-releasers. It's unclear whether they are harmful; the FDA doesn't restrict the use of them in cosmetics or personal care products, preferring to require disclosure on ingredient labels instead. The EU has strongly restricted the use of formaldehyde in industrial and consumer products since 2014, citing its carcinogenic risk.

6. Parabens

Parabens help some cosmetics stay pretty longer. They may also be dangerous. Image via iStock.

If you drink fruit juices or use cosmetics or fragrance products, you likely have encountered parabens, an extremely popular preservative.

Some activists are concerned by parabens, citing research that it potentially has adverse health risks when it's absorbed through the skin. Some studies have shown that parabens can mimic the effects of estrogen, the female sex hormone which could lead to a possible increase to breast cancer risk or potentially interfere with male reproductive function. Despite activists' concerns, more definitive research is needed.

7. Parfum (aka fragrance)

Lots of products use the catch-all terms parfum and fragrance for the proprietary mix of chemicals that make up their signature scents. Image via iStock.

Since there are no regulations requiring companies to disclose the ingredient lists of their signature scents, many of them simply say parfum or fragrance on the label. This can be misleading because the smells that make up a fragrance can come from any number of essential oils or chemical compounds.

For people with chemical sensitivities, these unlisted ingredients can trigger allergic reactions, migraines, or cause asthma. Environment Canada has also found that some synthetic musks used in fragrances can build up in the fatty tissue of fish and other water-bound organisms. Other fragrance additives, like DEP (see #4 above) help scents stay in the air longer, but have been shown in laboratory environments to potentially interrupt hormone functions.

Unfortunately, it is hard to know whether a specific fragrance or parfum contains potentially unsafe ingredients. If companies say their product fragrance is a trade secret, they aren't required to list what's in it on the ingredient label.

8. Polyethylene glycol (PEG)

PEG compounds can be found in some cosmetic cream bases — and laxatives. Image via iStock.

Polyethylene glycols are petroleum compounds most often found helping makeup and face creams deliver moisture. If perfectly pure, they are considered generally safe, though they're not recommended for use on broken skin. In rare cases, polyethylene glycol compounds can become contaminated with ethylene oxide, and that's when activists get concerned. Ethylene oxide is a known carcinogen that has also been shown in some research environments to cause developmental problems. All of this considered, the Environmental Working Group rates the overall hazard of using polyethylene glycols as "low."

9. Petrolatum (aka petroleum jelly or Vaseline)

Some glossy lipsticks get their shine from petrolatum. Image via iStock.

Tyra Banks swears by mineral oil jelly as her holy grail makeup product. It's an excellent moisture barrier to keep skin hydrated and is often added to skin care and hair care products.

But, because it is petroleum-based, there's a risk it could be contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Research has shown a link between long-term exposure to these petroleum byproducts and cancer. Based on that evidence, the EU classifies petrolatum as a carcinogen and only allows its use "if the full refining history is known and it can be shown that the substance from which it is produced is not a carcinogen." There are no such restrictions in the United States at the moment.

10. Siloxanes

Siloxanes are a group of chemical compounds based on silicone, a popular additive in many cosmetics and personal care products. Image via iStock.

If you like a clean windshield, dry underarms, or a smooth makeup base, you've probably used products containing siloxane. Two siloxanes in particular, cyclotetrasiloxane (D4) and cylcopentasiloxane (D5), have been studied by researchers in Canada and the EU extensively.

Environment Canada concluded that both D4 and D5 may build up in fish or other aquatic organisms but did not pose a threat to human health. The European study reached a similar conclusion, rating the chemicals as "high concern" but of no risk to human health.

11. Sodium laureth sulfate

Sodium laureth sulfate helps some shampoos stay foamier for longer. Image via iStock.

If you like lots of bubbles when you wash dishes or use shampoo, you may have sodium laureth sulfate to thank. It's a common foaming agent used in dish soaps, cleansers, and foamy beauty products. But, like polyethylene glycol (#8 on this list), sodium laureth sulfate can — on rare occasions — become contaminated with the known carcinogen ethylene oxide. Fortunately that's very unlikely to happen, so the Environmental Working Group rates the overall hazard of sodium laureth sulfate as "low."

12. Triclosan

Triclosan is an antibacterial chemical sometimes found in alcohol-based hand sanitizers. Image via iStock.

Triclosan is a very effective anti-bacterial chemical found in lots of common consumer products, including toothpaste, hand sanitizers, laundry detergent, and facial tissues, among others.

As we've written before, research has shown that triclosan sticks around in the environment long after we've finished using it, killing helpful algaes and even accumulating in the bodies of other organisms.

Triclosan was banned in personal care products ibanned in personal care products in the EU earlier this year. The EPA currently has it under review, and the FDA is reserving judgment until further research is done.

For a lot of these products, the research into their possible health impacts is still very new. Much is still to be done, and the definitive answers for what's safe and what's not may not be known for years — maybe even decades.

Until there is a scientific consensus, the smartest thing you can do for your health is what you're probably already doing: reading product labels, following warnings, and learning what companies are required to say (and sometimes don't say).

The interesting — and kinda confusing — way your cleaning products make it to market.

True

Congratulations! You've just bought a brand-new cleaning product that's going to revolutionize the way you clean your home/car/workplace.

It's been a long time coming, but after years of development, testing, and marketing, this game-changing clean-making innovation is now available to the world. This time next year, the person who invented it will be on stage receiving the Nobel Prize in chemistry, and Jennifer Lawrence or Michael Keaton will be getting ready to play them in a movie.

J-Law on her way to collect more award nominations, this time for playing said cleaning-supply creator. GIF from "Joy"/20th Century Fox.

In the meantime, though, it's sitting on your shelf. Getting it home from the store was easy, but its journey from future Nobel-Prize-winner's brain to your grocery store was not.

If you've ever wondered who makes sure your cleaning supplies are safe, well ... the answer's a little complicated.

According to the International Sanitary Supply Association, who oversaw a product on its way to the shelf depends on what you're planning to use it for. Let's say, for example, that your incredible cleaning product is a new type of sanitizer.

In general, hand sanitizers are considered "drugs," so it would have been regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Can you see the drug in this photo? Image via Ann Godon/Flickr.

The FDA regulates and oversees food safety, medical devices, cosmetics, animal feed, and everything in between. Like eating food that won't make you accidentally sick? Then you love the FDA.

Say, though, that you're a commercial janitor and plan to use this sanitizer for work. In that case, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) had a word with the product's makers.

This man's job is safer because of OSHA. Image via iStock.

The wonderful people at OSHA ensure working Americans have safe and healthful working conditions. They're responsible for making sure janitors don't use chemicals that could give them illnesses like cancer or respiratory problems.

Maybe you work in a hospital? If this product's going to assist in cleaning that hospital, it's considered a "medical device" and went through both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the FDA.

I'm in favor of anything that makes hospitals cleaner. Image via iStock.

The EPA follows rules and laws developed by Congress to protect human health and the environment. Their regulations, including the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act have forced companies to build environmental safeguards into their operations and remove harmful pollutants from our air and drinking water.

Who is ultimately responsible for governing cleaning products depends on whether they're considered critical (something that enters the human body and touches blood), semi-critical (something that touches the human body and mucous membranes like eyes or the mouth but not blood) or non-critical. Critical and semi-critical are governed by the FDA, non-critical by the EPA.

Oh, while we're here, does this product make any statements about being able to kill bugs, pests, or microorganisms?

If so, it's been registered with the EPA, like all products that claim to "prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate any pest," including harmful microorganisms.

Does it contain a known hazardous material? Then someone ran it by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

No babies were boxed in the making of this label. We hope! Image via Danny Norton/Flickr.

The fine folks at the Consumer Product Safety Commission are in charge of protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death associated with the use of certain consumer products. In this case, they've reviewed the potential health effects of chemicals used in the product.

Confused yet? Maybe a little defeated? Understandable. But you're one step closer to being an informed consumer!

For a product creator, this can be a complicated (but supremely necessary) process. For a consumer standpoint — it's even more so. Without one overall governing body for cleaning products, it can be hard to know where to look for info about about how the things that keep us clean are keeping us safe. Don't get me wrong, I'm so grateful all these regulatory bodies exist. I just wish they all had one website. With pictures!