Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2016

The Current Transcript for March 24, 2017

Host: Nora Young

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Listen to the full episode

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

KENAN THOMPSON: Say what's going on with your accent?

DRAKE: Oh me? Well, I'm actually Canadian, I'm from Toronto.

KENAN THOMPSON: You’re a black Canadian?

DRAKE: Yo there’s thousands of us, I'm sure you met a few of us before.

KENAN THOMPSON: [laughs] Nope.

[SOUND: Audience laughs]

NORA YOUNG: When the Canadian hip hop artist Drake starred on SNL last year, he put on a funny Canadian accent for a black Jeopardy skit. But it’s the different accents that pop up in Drake’s music from Jamaican patois to South African beats, that have sparked discussion about his style. Is it multiethnic musical appreciation or appropriation? We're starting today with some takes on Drake’s globally influenced hits. Also, the mayor of Berkeley, California insist that anyone selling a cell phone in his city put up a sign to warn about the health concerns.

SOUNDCLIP

I think people will think more carefully about how they use their phones. For example, I use a headset now when I make a lot of calls because I don't want to be exposed to, you know, significant radiation.

NY: There's more debate than you may realize about the health effects of cell phone use. and you may be surprised to learn that your own cell phone likely comes with a warning about just how close to hold it to your head and body. The CBC's Wendy Mesley has been tracking the research on cell phone health effects for years, and she joins me in about half an hour from now to share the results of her Marketplace report. Then an article by journalist Jackie Hong recently raised quite a stink.

SOUNDCLIP

So I think the thing that has everybody up in arms is that I haven't used soap in the shower for the past seven years. Not at all.

NY: She's my guest in an hour to talk about living soap free. I'm Nora Young and this is the Friday edition of The Current.

Back To Top »

Drake's global sound under fire for cultural appropriation

Guests: Sharine Taylor, Amani Bin Shikhan, Mark Campbell

[Music: Drake]

NORA YOUNG: Some brand new music from Drake. His newest release, a playlist he's dubbed More Life was a record breaker last week. It was streamed 76 million times on the music app Spotify in just one day. But at this point in his career, the multiple Grammy Award winning rapper must be getting used to that kind of outsized success. Drake performs on the world stage but where is his love for his hometown Toronto on his sleeve, in his lyrics and in his musical influences. Like the city helped christen The Six, Drake’s music brings together disparate multicultural influences, borrowing sounds and influences from places like Nigeria, South Africa, the UK and especially Jamaica and the Caribbean.

[Music: Drake]

NY: The musician who was born Aubrey Graham has a biracial identity as the son of an African-American father and a Jewish mother. And throughout Drake's ascent, he's been followed by a critique charged of appropriating rather than merely appreciating the very mosaic of music that's been instrumental to his success. It's a conversation that's only grown louder with Drake's newest release, and so we brought together a panel of guests to talk about how Drake and his globally tinged music dances on the line between appreciation and appropriation. Sharine Taylor is a writer in Toronto. Last month, she presented at the Global Reggae Conference at the University of the West Indies in Jamaica. Amani Bin Shikhan is a writer focusing on music and culture. And Mark Campbell is senior researcher at the FCAD Forum for Cultural Strategies at Ryerson University and the founding director at Northside Hip Hop Archive, Canada’s first national hip hop archive. And they're all with me in our studio here in Toronto, the town that Drake loves to rep. Hello to you all.

MANY VOICES: Good morning:

NY: Amani Bin Shikhan, let's start with you. We can’t talk about Drake without first talking about Toronto and its makeup. For people who may not be familiar with it, how would you describe this city?

AMANI BIN SHIKHAN: I would describe the city as a collection of diasporas. And so what that means is that in Toronto there is around 45 per cent of its citizens are immigrant born. And so what that means is that people are coming into the city with their own context, their own cultural context, their own real understanding of home. And so a lot of people are living in this city but also constantly engaged in cultural transference and cultural exchange and forming a greater context of the city that also is really influenced by their own experience.

NY: OK. Sharine Taylor, you have Jamaican roots but you grew up here in Toronto. Drake has drawn heavily on Jamaican artists and culture in his music. How does that sit with you?

SHARINE TAYLOR: I think it starts to spark larger conversations about ownership. So when you have an artist who is drawing on cultures that are outside of his own it starts to gauge some questions as to who is it being credited to?

NY: OK.

NY: A lot of folks introduction to dance hall has been by way of Drake and sometimes it stops there. But there's an entire industry and there are artists that are not necessarily having access to the same kind of visibility as this artist does. So that's where it kind of becomes a site of contestation for me.

NY: Right. Amani, you make the case that Drake is an artist of the diaspora. Can you told me about that?

AMANI BIN SHIKHAN: So the case that I make is one that also is very influenced by the fact that I am a fan. [chuckles] I think I’ve always been a fan of Drake and I think that from the start of his career he’s always been someone who has shown his influences, in terms of different geographies and different people and different linguistic sort of references that he makes throughout his music. And so when I do say that he’s a child of diaspora, I do mean that in terms of his Torontonian context and all the influences that inform that. But also in terms of his collaborators and the people who he works with and the broad sort of experiences that all those people contain. And so I do think that on different layers, he is someone who is really just an amalgamation of all of these different people and cultures and is really just a living proof of how that can work on a huge stage.

NY: So how do you respond to Sharine’s concerns about appropriation versus appreciation?

AMANI BIN SHIKHAN: I do agree with Sharine to an extent, I do think that there is an important conversation to be had about people who don't really understand that there is a culture that exists beyond Drake. I do think that he can be a point in which people can learn about different cultures and learn about different artists and things of that nature. But I don't think that is necessarily on Drake that people aren't necessarily taking that next step past that.

NY: Mark Campbell, this is a black artist being accused of culturally appropriating other black artists. What do you make of that?

MARK CAMPBELL: I find it interesting that he becomes a black artists only when we start to talk about this conversation, because he's biracial. And I think his biraciality is what makes this a more interesting conversation around appropriation. Appropriation, we could have this a 200 year colonial conversation about appropriation by going into the British Museum, right? And what I like about the discussion and the two panels that we have here, which is amazing, is that we can move beyond this sort of dichotomous view of appreciation versus appropriation by understanding his context and the context in which he creates his creative context. Black cultural production doesn't necessarily follow the same rules as North American or Western cultural production. And I say that because when black folks were brought to this part of the world, the art that was created wasn't necessarily created for a market. Which means that it doesn't fall within these neat categories of Canada or country or English or French or secular or religious. It moves between all of them all the time, and that's the beauty kind of the conversation is that all of our existing metrics for understanding appropriation now are disrupted, not just by him being biracial but him being a pop star. That’s a major context in which you need to understand Drake, as someone who, pop stars are not innovators, they’re disseminators right? So Lady Gaga, Madonna didn't invent vogueing right? There are folks that they bring these cool things to the world stage. And Drake is at that moment and he's bringing Toronto to a world stage and as Amani says, there's not necessarily the ability to understand how Toronto operates if you live in Melbourne, Australia.

NY: Mhm. So can you tease that out a little bit? I mean, there's this interesting thing you talked about cultural production, but at the same time Drake is this giant global pop star. So how is this different from Madonna's use of vogueing decades ago?

MARK CAMPBELL: What's different is within black culture there is not necessarily our ability as critics, as people that are not necessarily making music or making dance or making a creative text. We don't necessarily have the metrics to analyze that and assess it. And what we do is we assess it from mainstream Western discourse. We think that if a song is made in Canada that it’s Canadian and that's the end of the story, when, you know, some of the synths might be Ethiopian and then the baseline might be Jamaican and then the speech patterns might be Trinidadian, right? And that will happen, that's literally what's happening in the Toronto context. Where it becomes a real problem is as a pop star Drake, has the clout, he has the power as a mogul and he can thank me later for that one.

NY: [laughs]

MARK CAMPBELL: He has the ability to do something about, to change those relationships. So when there is an artist that he borrows from or, let's call it honours, right? He has the ability to feature them on a song, he has the ability to pay them royalties, he has the ability to bring them on tour to expand their audiences, especially if they're in a smaller market and they usually are in a smaller market than him.

NY: Sharine, how do you respond to that? I think, I do agree with what has been mentioned but for me I'm maintaining the same stance in that it comes back to yeah, we're in Toronto and I think part of Toronto's branding is branding itself as diverse. Which means that by virtue of that, we have access to different cultures and access to experience things within a closer proximity. So with that being said, I guess I'm starting to think about conversations around proximity to Jamaicaness, proximity to Caribbeaness, proximity to these different things. And then I'm thinking about what might happen afterwards when there are artists who, Drake is by virtue of his blackness, he’s part of this conversation, but I'm thinking about people who are non-black artists who are going to advance the same argument. Well, I have proximity to these cultures. And then that becomes a very different conversation. But I do think that this is a good place to analyze like what are the conversations that come after from folks who don't necessarily I guess belong to the proverbial circle?

AMANI BIN SHIKHAN: So I do think that that's a really good point Sharine. And I think that there's an important sort of difference to be made in terms of black diasporic cultural production and sharing and that sort of experience and also in terms of a greater Toronto context that includes people of all different ethnicities and cultures and things of that nature. I do think that something that's really important to distinguish is that for a long time there has never really been a black Torontonian identity. It really has been defined by its diaspora, really has been defined by all of the different things that we carry and bring in, and not something that's already there and for us to sort of siphon off of and assimilate into. And so I do think that what Drake is doing is speaking to that black Torontonian context within all of its complexities. And I don't think that he's necessarily appropriating, but I do think that that sort of practice that he's employed can be appropriated by people who don't understand the sort of layeredness of it and the specificity of it.

MARK CAMPBELL: So I actually think Sharine brings us to a good place where we need to start talking about ethics, a new kind of ethical relationship to culture. And Canada, and being Toronto, is a great place to start because we don't have those conversations about how can this look different at this moment in terms of intellectual property right and all of these things that exist, the structures in the media industry. I think having Sharine and Amani here is amazing because now we're at a moment where amazing writers like this can be out in the public and say hey, what if Drake did this? There's a moment and there's a responsibility, if he's going to rep our city, rep us ethically and acknowledge that, you know, I am I'm borrowing from the Somali community or borrowing from the Jamaican community and I, you know, I appreciate. And he has the platform to do that. And it doesn't even have to be monetarily. It can really be a gesture, but a public gesture that would make people in the future say oh but Drake acknowledged or Drake featured them or Drake brought them on tour or. And then there's new, there's kind of a new standard, which I think that's the exciting moment.

NY: This isn't just about Drake's musical sounds and influences, it's also about language. This is Drake's song Too Good from his previous album Views.

[Music: Drake]

NY: Sharine, Drake uses some patois in that last line we heard there. What's it like for you to hear him use it?

SHARINE TAYLOR: It's cringeworthy. [laughs]

MANY VOICES: [laughing]

NY: How so?

SHARINE TAYLOR: I think that, like, it would be really irresponsible for me to say that the slang that is native to Toronto, like, it does have Jamaican roots and it is informed by patois. But I think [chuckles] specifically with that one line, I think it's really funny which I'm assuming is a nod to Popcaan. But I think, and specifically regarding the more heavy employment with his recent project for me comes off as a little bit inauthentic. Just because if the argument is being advanced that this is being rooted in Toronto and this is a reflection of, like, Torontoness, and this for me had I seen it earlier in earlier projects it would have maybe been a different conversation. But we were hit with this like short film that was like embedded with like patois. And then all these projects that came out with it that arguably yes, did reflect some of the language and the vernacular of Toronto.

NY: Mhm.

SHARINE TAYLOR: But also some of times stepped out of it and was like super like, Jamaican, more Jamaican than Toronto. So that's where it becomes a little bit weird for me to hear.

NY: Amani, a few days ago you tweeted that you hate diaspora wars. What did you mean by that?

AMANI BIN SHIKHAN: I hate diaspora wars because I think that they are a very lazy way of understanding black cultural production and black art, and the ways that black people engage with one another in artistic spaces. I think that often diaspora wars become really obsessed with semantics and aren’t necessarily respectful of different cultural roots or different ways that, so the conversation with Drake, part of the conversation that really frustrates me is this insistence that this is new, this mixing of language, this mixing of cultures and this real sort of kind of normalization of just, like, I guess diasporic experience. And I think diaspora wars is really, are sort of ignorant to that fact. The fact that this has been ongoing, culture has always been a mixture of people, it has always been a mixture of language, it has always been a mixture of different experiences. Like, I know I keep saying experiences but it's something that's very true. And so when people come with all of these sort of preconceived notions of what people in one geographical space can do or are capable of doing or have been doing without any real knowledge of what has been happening in that place, or the contributions that have come from that place or all of the different achievements that have come from that place, I find that it's really counterproductive and pretty disrespectful to be honest. And I think that that happens a lot within diasporas, because like I said, a lot of times we’re contained within our smaller sort of cultural communities and don't really engage with one another in meaningful ways. And so when it comes to a conversation like Drake, people have a lot of emotions that they're really projecting onto him in ways that aren't necessarily fair or really informed. And I think again, that kind of goes back to the Torontonian context.

NY: Mhm. Mark, I mean, at the same time the conversation is happening against this backdrop of massive global migration and a music industry that has been changed by technology and the way data and music and sounds can travel. How do you see that changing the conversation when it comes to some of these issues around appropriation and influence?

MARK CAMPBELL: Well, the opportunity that exists is that for young people who are listening to Drake and following his sample usages and some of his features, immediately one can do the research to learn more about Afropop or, you know, and golden kuduro, or whatever is being sampled, right? So in terms of the grime scene, as a deejay here in Toronto for the last 20 years, I wasn't necessarily getting access to grime records on vinyl and being able to play them in Toronto.

NY: From the UK.

MARK CAMPBELL: So access to, yeah from the UK. And now in the digital world, I mean, my friends will just send me an email and say oh this is what's poppin off out here, check it out and see if it resonates in your context. So that's the opportunity. But I think at the very same moment, the problem or what's taken away is that we might not develop that same kind of research ethic in terms of going back and trying to learn to appreciate, because everything is so instantaneous and it's, we're expected to sort of consume it quickly and move on to something else. When maybe I might want to listen to, you know, 25-year-old Ethiopian pop records. And that's kind of not what digital culture encourages us to do right?

NY: Mhm. Sharine, what do you want people to keep in mind as they're listening to Drake’s music?

SHARINE TAYLOR: I do agree with the fact that I do think that he is trying to channel Torontoness in a way.

NY: Mhm.

SHARINE TAYLOR: But a lot of the conversations that I've seen, especially given the project that was just dropped, was that, and I guess not more so these recent projects, not his entire catalog. But that it is rooted somewhere and it's rooted somewhere from, it's rooted in Jamaica, where there's like a really informal economy. And I think regarding these conversations, we have to remember that there's conversations to be had about power and accessibility and as well as accessibility to economies as well. And the fact that the artists are coming from industries, music industries that have not don't have proper infrastructure. So one of the great things that I've been hearing was that an artist, Giggs, is getting a lot of streaming and a lot of downloads now which is amazing. But the UK has a grime industry that can support that kind of thing. So when I'm thinking about my relationship to dancehall and my relationship to dancehall artists where there's not the infrastructure there to support it, that's where I'm concerned about. So just knowing that if you really do have an affinity for these artists like go out and listen to their records, go out and start screaming their songs through Apple Music. You know, I guess like, look further than just the sole record.

MARK CAMPBELL: Can I jump in there? Because—

NY: Yes, we have like 30 seconds left.

MARK CAMPBELL: Sure. Part of the research I do with at the FCAD Forum for Cultural Strategies at Ryerson is to look at the policies of these countries and understand in a place like Jamaica, that which is number wise sort of 2.4 million, or the same size as Toronto, there isn't the same kind of government infrastructure to support the artists. There is no SOCAN. I mean, for what's amazing about Jamaican music is that the government hasn't supported it in all of its years of development, right? So that's a huge point around power that Sharine brings up that we need to consider.

NY: I'm afraid we'll have to leave it there. Lots more to talk about. Thank you so much. Sharine Taylor is a writer, Amani Bin Shikhan is a writer focusing on music and culture. And Mark Campbell is senior researcher at the FCAD Forum for Cultural Strategies at Ryerson University and the founding director at Northside Hip Hop Archive, Canada’s first national hip hop archive. They were all with me in our Toronto studio. Now we want to hear from you on this. Is an artist like Drake appropriate or appreciating when he draws from other parts of the world for his music? Tweet us, we’re @TheCurrentCBC, you can also post on this story on Facebook or email us by clicking on contact at cbc.ca/thecurrent. A quick note about something coming up next week. Anna Maria Tremonti will be in Ottawa Tuesday, for The Current’s next public forum on missing and murdered Indigenous women. And you can watch a livestream of the event on The Current’s Facebook page. Just visit the page at facebook.com/cbcthecurrent at 7:00 PM Eastern time on Tuesday. And you can hear that forum here on the show the following week. OK, the news is up next. And when we return, CBC's Wendy Mesley does a deep dive about cell phones and your health. I’m Nora Young and you're listening to the Friday edition of The Current.

[Music: Extro]

Back To Top »

Cellphone in your pocket? CBC's Marketplace investigates why you might reconsider

Guest: Wendy Mesley

NORA YOUNG: Hello, I'm Nora Young and you're listening to the Friday edition of The Current.

[Music: Theme]

NY: Still to come, if cleanliness is next to godliness then going without soap is downright heretical. But in half an hour from now, I'll be joined by a Toronto journalist who isn't ashamed to say she's off the suds. But first, you have one unread message on your smartphone and it's an important one.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Where would I be able to find it?

VOICE 2: Control centre. General. I can't find it, I’m going to be honest.

VOICE 3: That’s how it looks?

VOICE 4: I do think that information should be made more available.

VOICE 5: Such information about health cannot become a fine print.

NY: Some people on the street there surprised to learn about a potentially concerning message that came with their smartphones. In fact, if you scroll through the settings and legal notices of your phone, you might just might be able to find it for yourself. On the iPhone, the warning advises you to carry your phone five millimetres away from your body. Other manufacturers suggest as much as 15 millimetres. And it's that kind of message that's been concerning CBC journalist Wendy Mesley for years. For nearly two decades she's been tracking the research on the health effects of cell phones. One of the largest and most comprehensive studies yet was released last year, and it prompted Wendy to prepare a special report. It's airing tonight on CBC's Marketplace and Wendy Mesley joins me in our Toronto studio now. Hello.

WENDY MESLEY: Hi Nora.

NY: So I was surprised to learn about this message buried in every cell phone. What's the message?

WENDY MESLEY: Well, it's there because of a requirement by the Canadian government that cell phone manufacturers tell Canadians about its safety guidelines around radiation exposure because cell phones do emit low levels of radiation. So it says quote, “to reduce exposure to radio frequency, use a hands free option such as the speaker phone and to carry the phone at least five millimetres away from your body.” Depending on the manufacturer they get to choose that distance, so they can hold it up to 15 millimetres away. But who does that?

NY: Yeah, mine's usually in my back pocket. Now I have to say I looked for this--

WENDY MESLEY: Oh you did?

NY: Where can I find that message?

WENDY MESLEY: You didn't find it?

NY: I did not.

WENDY MESLEY: You’re the technology lady. Wow. Wow. Well you're hardly alone. But it takes five or six steps, so it depends on the phone. But if you go into settings and then you go to about and then you go to, it depends. But about five steps later, you'll come up to legal. It's also in the fine print of some manuals, which all of us of course read from start to finish.

NY: Of course. So how many people are aware of this warning?

WENDY MESLEY: Well, you should have seen the faces of people when we asked them. We did what we call streeters at the Eaton Centre. We asked people to check their phones. And like you, most of them couldn't find the message. And when we help them, they were kind of shocked. And we did a survey actually at Marketplace. We conducted a survey of 11,060 Canadians and asked them how many were aware of the phone manufacturer's suggestion to hold the phone five to 15 millimetres away, which is a centimetre and a half. 81 per cent had no clue. 67 per cent said they do carry their phones against their bodies most of the time. And when we told them about the message, about how to follow the recommendations, how to hold it, three out of four people we surveyed said that they would stop carrying their phone against their body. So it could be argued it’s important information.

NY: Mhm. I want to ask you about the study that was released last year, which was looking at the potential health effects of cell phone use. What was it about that study that prompted you to take another look at the story?

WENDY MESLEY: Well, it’s because it rang some familiar bells. For 20 years, not all the time, but every few years I pop in and do an update asking two questions. Do these things that we're all in love with, we're all using them all the time, could they cause cancer? And two, have we been given enough information to decide for ourselves about that or any other possible harmful effects? So that study that you're talking about last year, it was the biggest ever done in North America. The US government asked for it. It was done by an agency called the National Toxicology Program or NTP. And the scientists running it was on the record beforehand saying that he didn't think it would find any harm because the levels of radiation were so low generally. And that's basically the opinion of the cell phone manufacturers. They've been telling us for years, as has the US and Canadian governments that there is no conclusive evidence of harmful effects. So this study was supposed to get to the bottom of that, and the scientists involved thought that they would find no problem.

NY: So what did the study find?

WENDY MESLEY: Not what he was expecting. There's two parts to this study. The first part on rats is done. The second one on mice on other body parts is still ongoing. But in that first phase, rats were exposed to cell phone radiation and they found a significant increase in brain tumors.

NY: Hm.

WENDY MESLEY: In fact, the rats developed the same type of tumors that have been shown to have a possible link to cell phone use before. So these are ones that for example, the World Health Organization in 2011, labeled cell phone use as a possible carcinogen, a possible cause of cancer. So the scientists involved in the NTP study, the one that came out last year, deemed these findings so important that they decided not to wait until they had completed the second part of the study on the mice, they wanted to get this information out to public health agencies like the FDA in the States and here like Health Canada they were looped in to, so that they could get the word out. And they called this news conference and for a day or two there were big headlines talking about the findings. But then the studies seemed to disappear. The results they are publicly available, but Health Canada is not alerting people to this.

NY: Why not? What do they say?

WENDY MESLEY: Well Health Canada told us they're not advising Canadians about the NTP study because quote, “while some advocates have argued this study provides conclusive evidence, there are numerous scientific questions about this study that remain to be addressed. For example, the animals that were exposed tended to live longer than the control group.” Health Canada also argues that the study is not complete, but we checked and the scientists who ran it say yes it is. The mice study is separate but the rat study is complete. But it's always, it's even more complicated than that. The former NTP scientists that I've spoken to have said that when the US government officials learned that the scientists were going to go public about those tumors, they took the unusual step for this government agency of hiring outside reviewers to go over the work. Many of them agreed with the conclusions but some didn't, one in particular. And those comments then got picked up by a lot of media outlets and it almost became like the study never happened. And I'd seen similar things happen to studies that suggested harm in the past. So as a journalist, you always want to know everything.

NY: [chuckles] Sure.

WENDY MESLEY: It just made me curious.

NY: So I know as part of your story you went to Berkeley, California where there's been quite a controversy about this message in all our cell phones that we've been talking about. Tell me about what's happening there.

WENDY MESLEY: Yeah. Well, Berkeley, I guess no big surprise, the first place to ban smoking in restaurants. They banned BPA. Not a big city but it's kicked up a big storm over this cell phone issue. The city recently passed an ordinance to require all the mobile stores to put up a sign on the counter, basically telling people about that message that no one notices is in their phones, they're putting it up on the counter. And so it says that if they wear their phone in a pocket or tucked in their bra, that they could be exceeding the radiation exposure limit set by the government. But before the bill was even passed, the cell phone industry was on the case, calling those signs alarmist and demanding that they be taken down. I talked to the mayor. Here's Jesse Arreguin.

SOUNDCLIP

I think the concern on the part of the telecommunications industry is if we can do it in Berkeley, then other cities will will do it as well. And I think they're probably concerned that this may affect their bottom line. That less people will purchase cell phones because they're concerned about the health and safety effects. I don't necessarily think we're going to see a significant reduction in people buying cell phones in Berkeley, but I think people will think more carefully about how they use their phones. For example, I use a headset now when make a lot of calls because I don't want to be exposed to, you know, significant radiation.

NY: So this is turned into a bit of a clash of the titans on the legal front. Who are the two main players acting on behalf of the city and the cell phone companies?

WENDY MESLEY: Oh, it's so interesting. There's only 19 mobile stores in all of Berkeley but it's become this huge test case. Other cities have tried and failed to get the message out. San Francisco, for example. But Berkeley's mayor says they're going to stick to it. And it really is a clash of the titans. The cell phone association has hired Ted Olson. He's a former US Solicitor General, he was one of the lead lawyers in the fight years ago for big tobacco. And on the other side, he is up against Lawrence Lessig, who once sought to become the presidential candidate for the Democrats. He now teaches ethics at Harvard. And he's offered his services for free for Berkeley. So this fight, it's expected to go all the way to the Supreme Court.

NY: Wow. So cell phones have to be safety tested before they're allowed on the market so they don't expose us to unsafe levels of radiation. So how were the phones tested?

WENDY MESLEY: Well, it gets really interesting here. For 20 years I'd been hearing from scientists critical of how the testing is done. But I'd never seen it. But we found a lab in California that tests phones for the manufacturers, Canadian and American, before they are allowed to put their phones on the market.

NY: OK.

WENDY MESLEY: And they agreed to do some tests for us to show us how it works. So we asked Chief Engineer Jay Molton to show us how they test for the manufacturers the way the government requires, where they're allowed to position the phone up to a centimetre and a half away from the body. But we also asked them to do an extra test for us, because we want to see what happens when it's tested holding it the way most people use their phones, right next to the body. Here's a bit of the test.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: electronic squeaking]

And you put it into the holder, move it up close to the head. And then I just at this point I’m going to adjust to set it so that the speaker is right at the edge of the ear.

WENDY MESLEY: So they have these casts, they're made to represent the head and the body and they're filled with liquid. The head, it's huge, it's modeled after the average size of an army marine, like the head is 11 pounds, it’s a 200 pound guy that it's modeled after. And that's because the test was devised decades ago before anyone thought that a child would be using a phone. So then these casts are filled with liquid, which are meant to represent the brain or human flesh. Then a wand is stuck in to measure how much energy or radiation is absorbed. But instead of positioning the phone right next to the body, the phone makers choose to test, and they're allowed to do this, to test five to 15 millimetres away. And we know that the further away the phone is tested the lower the radiation.

NY: OK, so why do they test them with that gap there?

WENDY MESLEY: Well, basically because that's what the government, the Canadian and American governments, allow. Also because when the tests were designed, the phones, they were too big to put in your pocket. And even when they got a lot smaller, a lot of people carried them in holsters. Well some people still wear them, you remember those.

NY: I remember those, yes. [chuckles]

WENDY MESLEY: One thing for sure, when tested that way, away from the body, the three phones that we took to the lab, three of the latest models from Apple, Samsung ,and LG, they all passed the test, which is not surprising because we know they're approved, they're on the market.

NY: OK. But you did these further tests. So what happens when you test the cell phones without the gap?

WENDY MESLEY: Yeah. So this was a special test for us and it turns out all three phones exceeded the safety limit when they were tested the way that most people carry them. So we asked the chief engineer, does this bother you? And he says no, because most people live in towns or cities, they're close to a cellphone tower, so the phone doesn't have to try that hard to reach the tower so there's not that much radiation. But he says that even if you live in a rural area, where the phone has to try harder, you're still protected because the phones are tested at maximum power levels. In other words, he says there's these big safety margins built in to protect everyone. But then we went to talk to Devra Davis. She says the whole test is out of date. She's a toxicologist, an epidemiologist, she's the founder and director of the Environmental Health Trust, a public health advocacy organization. She used to work for the National Toxicology Program years ago, advised the government. For the past few years, she's been warning people about cell phones. And she says that that test doesn't acknowledge what a lot of recent science shows, that there could be harmful effects way below the radiation levels that the test looks for. Here's part of my conversation with Devra Davis.

SOUNDCLIP

WENDY MESLEY: When I first interviewed you many years ago, you were persuaded there was a problem. You're still persuaded?

DEVRA DAVIS: Oh, more than ever unfortunately.

WENDY MESLEY: Why?

DEVRA DAVIS: Well, the science has progressed without any question. We have more experimental data on animals, unfortunately we have more data on people.

NY: So there are all these concerns about how our health is being affected. Is there any evidence to show that cancers, tumors related to radio frequency exposure, cell phone radiation, are on the rise?

WENDY MESLEY: Well, that's a big question. I've always wondered if cell phones are a problem, then where are all the brain tumors? So we check Canadian stats and they show that brain tumors are up over the last few years. But that's all brain tumors, they don't break them down by type to see if there's any increase in the kind of tumor that's possibly linked to cell phone use. In the US, the stats are pretty static, they don't show much change. And that's why this field is so complicated. Tumors can take decades to develop. It's really hard to ever prove what caused a tumor. You can't do human experiments, you can lock someone in a shed for 40 years and expose them to just one possible carcinogen. So that helps explain how some can argue that there's no conclusive proof, there's no definitive causal effect that might be causing a tumor. They might never find that kind of proof. But I met a neuro oncologist in Edmonton named Jay Easaw, who's trying to get more data. He treats the kind of tumors that were studied in the rats exposed to cell phone radiation in that NTB study. And he's so concerned by what he's been seeing the last few years, that he's helped to launch a registry to collect data. Have a listen to what he told us.

SOUNDCLIP

JAY EASAW: I am convinced that one, brain tumors are on the rise. I'm convinced that they are occurring in younger and younger people just based on my own experience in clinic. I believe that we're going to see more and more studies that show a correlation between cell phone use and the incidence in brain tumors because that's what I’m seeing in the clinic. The data that are out there are so controversial, so inconclusive, some that are definitive for there being a causal relationship between cell phones and brain tumors, and others that show the exact opposite. And in Health Canada’s position they have to look at the data and they have to come to a conclusion. And truthfully, the data are inconclusive.

WENDY MESLEY: Why is there not more data?

JAY EASAW: Do you know why? I'll tell you, even in our own clinic we've tried to keep track of this. And when we ask a patient about their cell phone use, we're asking them to remember and that's just not reliable.

NY: So the science around this isn't conclusive yet?

WENDY MESLEY: It's really complex. Some people, like Devra Davis, are concerned about the evidence that they say already exists. I met her years ago when I did the story for CBC about how many countries like the UK for example, they tell parents it's a good idea to not let children under 12 use a phone because their brains and skulls are more vulnerable to the radiation that cell phones emit. So she's still concerned about that. But her latest concern is that cell phone radiation could harm sperm, which would mean fertility issues, could mean low birth rates and could increase the risk of breast cancer among women who carry their phones in their bra. So it's not definitive. These are case studies, but she showed me a slide of a young woman with breast cancer who stored her phone in her bra. This is Devra Davis.

SOUNDCLIP

It's extraordinarily unusual for a young woman to have one breast cancer, to have two, three, or four and they all develop as separate tumors under the antenna of the phone. That's beyond coincidence, at least in the opinion of the physicians.

WENDY MESLEY: So most of the science on any effect on sperm or breast is in the form of case studies. There really isn't much published on this, so it's far from definitive.

NY: So far we've heard from people who are raising concerns. How do the cell phone companies and Health Canada respond?

WENDY MESLEY: Well, we got in touch with the three companies Apple, Samsung, and LG, and told them that their phones had exceeded the government's exposure limits when we did our test, tested the way people wear them. We asked for an interview. No interviews. All three sent us a statement saying basically that their phones meet all the government requirements. We also tried to get an interview with the Health Minister Jane Philpott, to show her not just those test results but also to ask if most people have no idea of that message in their phones, does the government need to do a better job of getting the message out to people? And we made repeated requests there but she declined an interview, so did Health Canada. So we ended up doing an interview with Paul Demers. He's an epidemiologist who was asked by Health Canada a couple of years ago to do a review of the existing science on cell phone exposures. And this is what he said.

SOUNDCLIP

PAUL DEMERS: I'm not convinced of these health effects at this point but I'm concerned that we're continually doing research on these things to make sure of that and to keep on top of the latest research.

WENDY MESLEY: So what is your bottom line then? Are the way that we use cell phones now, are we safe?

PAUL DARVASI: Well, I believe we are. Yes I do. You know, that said, you can never be 100 per cent sure. I actually believe in the conclusions of the report that we did at that time. I wasn't convinced. There are other scientists that I respect who’re more convinced than I am. So there's a range of reasonable scientific beliefs in this or understandings of the literature depending upon who you talk to.

NY: Wendy, you've been tracking this story for 20 years.

WENDY MESLEY: Oh yeah. [chuckles]

NY: You say the disappearance of the new American study on rats sounded familiar. You said that earlier, it rang some bells for you. What did you mean by that?

WENDY MESLEY: Well that study, it was this second big study done in the US. 20 years ago, the first story I did on this, the US cell phone lobby said it would spend 25 million dollars to get to the bottom of the do cell phones cause cancer question. I interviewed the scientist that they hired to run it, his name was George Carlo, who’s an epidemiologist. He told me that they hadn't found any harmful effects. But then a couple of years later he recanted. In another interview for Marketplace, he told me that his scientists actually had found harm but that his bosses at the cell phone association told him to shut it down and not report it. So we checked with the cell phone association and they said that's not true. That Carlo is not correct and that their study did not find any harm. Got me wondering though. And then a few years later, I did another story showing how much of the cell phone science was being funded by the industry itself. I mean, this happens in every industry, it’s not surprising. But that even at the level of the World Health Organization, where the scientist running the cell phone, all the studies on cell phones at that time, told me that the influence of industry money even at the World Health Organization, the world's senior cancer agency that that influence was quote “malignant”. So the cell phone industry doesn't dispute funding some science but they do insist that they're not influencing the conclusions. So it’s so interesting.

NY: Yeah, so how is the scientific community reacting to this? This latest research on cell phones and our health?

WENDY MESLEY: It's varied. There are obviously a number of government agency, a number of experts who are, you know, insisting that it’s still not conclusive, that you can't prove that there's harm. But there's one expert I spoke to, Anthony Miller, he's a Canadian epidemiologist. He was one of the senior scientists at the World Health Organization when they were studying a possible link between cell phones and cancer that resulted in them classifying cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen back in 2011. He's now professor emeritus at U of T, and he's one of 190 scientists around the world who argue that since then, that there's now so much science suggesting possible harm that the World Health Organization should ring the bell more loudly. That they should reclassify it, that they should say that cell phone radiation is not just a possible carcinogen but a probable carcinogen.

NY: So Wendy, at the end of the day, what do Canadians need to think about when they're using their cell phones? Do you have any advice?

WENDY MESLEY: Well that's where it gets weird as a journalist right? I don't like telling people. I'm not a scientist or a politician, so I'm not going to tell people how to behave. But as a journalist, I always fight for more information. And I get the sense that a lot of Canadians, probably most Canadians, have no idea that there is a real debate happening among serious scientists about whether or not there could be harmful effects from the way we use our phones. And before anyone can make a decision about their health, they need to know what the scientists, the policy makers, and the cell phone companies know, like that information about how to wear your phone to meet the government's exposure limits, that's buried in their phones. So that's the message I wanted to get across in this story. That we still don't have a definitive answer on whether cell phones cause cancer or any other harmful effects, but there is a serious debate about this. So can I come back in 20 years?

NY: You can go back any time you want.

WENDY MESLEY: Thanks Nora.

NY: Thanks Wendy. That was The National's Wendy Mesley telling us about her latest investigation which airs on CBC TV's Marketplace tonight at 8:00 PM and 8:30 PM in Newfoundland.

[Music]

NY: Coming up next, can you imagine swearing off soap? After the break, I'll be joined by someone who says she's gone years without soapy showers and that her skin is still smooth and supple. She's part of a growing number of people, including some skin experts, who say we could probably do with a lot less of the stuff. We'll find out why when we return. I'm Nora Young and you're listening to the Friday edition of The Current.

[Music: Extro]

NORA YOUNG: Hi, I'm Nora Young and you're listening to the Friday edition of The Current. If you were with us yesterday, then you know that Anna Maria Tremonti, the regular host of The Current, recently joined the ranks of Canadians who have received phone calls from scammers pretending to be the Canada Revenue Agency. The CRA says telephone scams from people impersonating its employees are on the rise with tax time approaching. And Anna Maria recorded her encounter with the scammer. You can hear it on our website at cbc.ca/thecurrent. The incident seems to have struck a chord with a lot of you. Here's just a bit of the feedback we've received. John Henning in Chute-a-Blondeau, Ontario writes, “I've received several of their calls and quickly determined they were scamming. My daughter received an email from the scammers a couple of weeks ago. The email contained a button to click on to respond. On my advice, she updated her anti-virus software, did a scan and what do you know there was a virus. On the other hand, I received a call from the CRA last fall, I thought it was a scam so I had them send me a physical letter that described the problem. It turns out it was the CRA and not a big deal. This must be driving the CRA a bit crazy.” Melissa Wilson in Rimouski, Quebec writes, “I received a call from a mail claiming to be a CRA employee who sounded very official at first. He told me that I had made a mistake on my taxes and that I owed more than 3000 dollars. I told him that I didn't have the money and there was no way I could pay that the following day. He backed off a bit, was very kind and said that an arrangement could be made and could I pay just 350 dollars. As he was explaining everything, I gradually calmed down and realized that the real CRA would never actually send someone to my house to collect money. So I simply asked him outright if he really worked for the CRA and he hung up on me immediately. This made me realize how careful we all have to be with telephone scammers.” Wendy de Kruyff posted on Facebook about her experience. “The scammers tell you they'll come to your door but then just ask for pin numbers so you won't be embarrassed by a house call. All scam, all the time. The CRA does not take iTunes cards.” And finally, Nattalia Hadden in Vancouver writes, “I'm sure you've helped many elderly and gullible people who receive these calls. I've received so many but your aplomb far outweighed mine. I just scream into the phone and hang up. The part about them coming to the door is really scary. This segment helped the public see through their deceit.” Keep your stories coming. Have you ever received a call from a fake CRA scammer? What did you do? Let us know. Tweet us @TheCurrentCBC, post on this story on Facebook or email us by clicking on contact at cbc.ca/thecurrent.

Back To Top »

Soap-free for 7 years, Jackie Hong makes the case against lathering up

Guests: Jackie Hong, Dr. Sandy Skotnicki, Darren Praznik

[Music: soap washing kids song]

This is the way we wash our face.

NORA YOUNG: Well, it's a message it's been drummed into us since we were kids, and one we in turn drum into our kids every day, lather up and get good and soapy to get good and clean. In fact, just the thought of going without a daily dose of suds is enough to make many of us squirm. But not my next guest. Jackie Hong is a reporter with The Toronto Star, and she caused quite a stir with a recent article, in which she came clean about her own surprising washing routine. Jackie Hong is with me in our Toronto studio now. Hello.

JACKIE HONG: Hello.

NY: So Jackie, what is different about your daily cleaning ritual?

JACKIE HONG: So I think the thing that has everybody up in arms is that I haven't used soap in the shower for the past seven years.

NY: Not at all?

JACKIE HONG: Not at all. Nope.

NY: How about shampoo? You have long hair, do you shampoo?

JACKIE HONG: I do shampoo about once a month. But otherwise, yeah, I'm not a daily shampooer.

NY: OK, so why? Why did you stop using soap?

JACKIE HONG: So this actually goes back to being a student in grade 11. So I was 16 or 17, and we had an artist in residence in my high school. And I was hanging out in a studio and one day came up in conversation that he hadn’t used soaping close to two decades. So I reacted the way a lot of people are reacting to now, sort of like ew gross, what?

NY: [laughs]

JACKIE HONG: And he asked well, do I smell? And I answered truthfully, no.

NY: Mhm.

JACKIE HONG: And that was that.

NY: Washing with soap is so ingrained in our society. How hard was it for you to give this up?

JACKIE HONG: Not at all actually. I mean, I think not doing something is easier than doing something right?

NY: Right.

JACKIE HONG: So you save a bunch of, I saved a bunch of cash. I mean, I was 16, and so it's not like I had a ton of disposable income.

NY: Mhm.

JACKIE HONG: So not having to buy the fancy body washes and scented shower gels and all the things my friends were buying was a bonus for me, if anything.

NY: So what benefits have you seen personally since you stopped using soap?

JACKIE HONG: To be honest, I haven't noticed much change in my skin, which I think is what kept me going. I mean, my skin, you can see it's not particularly horrific, it's not gross, it's not crackly.

NY: Not at all. [chuckles]

JACKIE HONG: it's not covered in sores. It's normal, it's fine. If anything, I don't get winter itch, it doesn't get dried out. And this might just be because I'm no longer a hormonal teenager but my face has actually sort of cleared of too. [chuckles]

NY: Any downsides?

JACKIE HONG: Other than people being grossed out when I tell them, no.

NY: [laughs] What do you do if you actually get dirty? Like, if you're, you know, working the garden or something and you're dirty?

JACKIE HONG: I use water. If I'm sweaty, if I've been on a hike, if after a long day at work, I just shower with warm water. If I'm sick or I've been in a hospital or I'm around sick people, then I do use warm water and soap to wash my hands because I don't think there's any doubt that that prevents the spread of disease. But other than that, yeah, just water.

NY: Jackie, I'm going to add this to the list of things I never thought I would ask a guest--

JACKIE HONG: [laughs]

NY: But can I smell you?

JACKIE HONG: Of course.

NY: [chuckles] OK, I’m just going to go over here and smell you. [chuckles] You smell.

JACKIE HONG: [laughs]

NY: You smell completely neutral. You know you don't smell, not only you don't smell bad, you don't smell like anything. You just smell like a person.

JACKIE HONG: Yeah.

NY: [chuckles] That's good. So what kind of, you’ve alluded to this a little bit. What kind of reaction do you get when you tell people that you no longer use soap or much shampoo?

JACKIE HONG: A lot of the reaction is mildly horrified, shocked, and then people very quickly correct their faces to appear not impolite I guess. But surprisingly since the article went out last week, I've gone quite a few emails from people saying hey, I haven't used soap in like 36 years or--

NY: Wow.

JACKIE HONG: My mom hasn’t washed her face with soap in 69 years and our skin is amazing. So I don't think I've like kicked off anything. I think I've just sort of maybe opened the doorway for more conversation and for people to say like, hey, I haven't used soap either.

NY: Yeah. Do you think people felt sort of empowered attitude to speak up about it after you kind of wrote about it publicly? I think some people sort of felt the way I did after writing the piece, in that we’ve been doing this for so long and in your gut you sort of feel like I'm doing the right thing because I haven't, my skin is fine. But to have dermatologists and scientists and researchers sort of say like yes, this is fine, it's sort of extra reassuring and gives you that extra ammunition for people who get grossed out.

NY: Mhm. So once you have spoken about it and written about it, do people believe that you can be healthy without soap and not smelly?

JACKIE HONG: Quite a few people have written to me saying yeah I'm going to try this out now. But I think because soap is so deeply ingrained into our notions of cleanliness and hygiene, some people will refuse to listen to any evidence you throw at them. So I've gotten a couple of those emails too being like you’re disgusting.

NY: Oh really?

JACKIE HONG: [laughs] You're gross. Yeah, The Star actually embedded a poll in the online story with something like, so what do you think of not using soap and about half the readers said like, sometimes it's ok sometimes it's not. But the second most popular vote was gross, ick.

NY: [laughs]

JACKIE HONG: So.

NY: And what, you said you use shampoo about once a month?

JACKIE HONG: Yeah.

NY: How do you keep your hair, I mean, it looks great. How do you keep it from getting oily or whatever?

JACKIE HONG: So I would brush it out a lot and I find that helps distribute the oils. And I do use sort of a DIY dry shampoo as part of that brushing sometimes. And I just wash it with plain water. And I found that over the years, the greasiness gets a lot more manageable. So the less you use shampoo, the less, there's that initial stage where you're like oh my god, this is disgusting.

NY: [laughs]

JACKIE HONG: But after a while my hair looks fine I think.

NY: Yeah yeah. So the less you use shampoo you find the less you need to use shampoo?

JACKIE HONG: Yeah. And weaning yourself off is that tough part. It just gets so greasy when you start, but the longer you keep at it the better it gets.

NY: So based on your experience, are you now advocating that everybody should follow you and stop using soap?

JACKIE HONG: I wouldn’t say I am advocating, I would suggest that people try it. If people have skin conditions or your doctor has recommended you to use a certain soap or detergent or whatever on your skin, I'm not advocating for you to stop using it. But I guess my goal with the piece was to just sort of get people thinking about it and to say that soap, for a hygiene soap, is not necessary. So give it a second thought.

NY: Jackie, thanks so much for telling us about your experience.

JACKIE HONG: No problem.

NY: Jackie Hong is a reporter with The Toronto Star. She was here with me in Toronto. Well it may have been a personal decision that led Jackie Hong to forego soap, but as she mentioned, some skin experts believe that easing up on the cleaning products has some real benefits. Dr. Sandy Skotnicki is a dermatologist with a busy Toronto practice. She is also an Assistant Professor at the University of Toronto's Dermatology department. And she's with me in studio now. Hello.

DR. SANDY SKOTNICKI: Hello there. Great to be here.

NY: Thanks for coming. Dr. Sandy Skotnicki, what do you think of Jackie Hong's cleaning regimen, does it have much merit?

DR. SANDY SKOTNICKI: Well it's not actually new. I mean, I've been doing research on this topic for a while. My academic interest is contacted reactions to the skin, so things that irritate the skin. And I'm in the midst of writing a book on it. But the no washing, no shampoo, they call it no poo. It's been a movement for a few years now. And so and dermatologists, I'm not the only one, we often tell our patients, especially with winter itch, don't shower so much, don't wash so much. It's not necessary for hygiene.

NY: What about washing your hands, which is such a—

DR. SANDY SKOTNICKI: That's a whole different story.

NY: Yeah.

DR. SANDY SKOTNICKI: So hands, we can make a total exception here. We talk about chain of infection sometimes when we talk about infectious disease. So to break the chain of infection, like, if you're out in a public place, like a mall or you’re touching an escalator or something, you do need to wash your hands to break the transmission of microbial viruses, bacterias, both. But washing your body is kind of a leftover thing from the days when, you know, we didn't have antibiotics and we didn't have showers. And, you know, pricking your hand outside on a thorn could actually kill you. So it's an ingrained in us and, you know, there's a great professor of hygiene from the London School of Hygiene that talks about disgust and dirt and hygiene. So through evolution, before humans, it's ingrained in us to want to be clean because it helps with survival. So we've actually selected that through genetics, so it's actually against our DNA to want to be dirty.

NY: Interesting. So what kinds of ailments do you see in your patients that are as a result of over washing?

DR. SANDY SKOTNICKI: Well, one of the things you have to understand, like, I break it down to the science. And the outer part of the skin is like a brick wall. So if you imagine the bricks or cells and the mortar is sort of their fats, fatty acids, cholesterol, things like that, it's like a sealant. So you have this armor, skin is this magical armor. It's a permeable membrane but it's still an armor. So what soap does and the manufacturers know this, because soap has really improved over the last 50 years. Original soap was very alkaline, it’s strip. So what soap does is it takes away grease, so the mortar in your skin is grease. So it's actually removing your own protective barrier. So when you do that, you're irritating your skin, more water comes off like gets out because it's a sealant and things can get in. So when you over wash your body, like your arms and your legs and your back and you haven't actually been outside doing anything dirty, you're damaging your skin. And furthermore, you can then get what's called winter itch, you can start to get itchy, flaky, you know, people I’ll often see gentlemen more than women, because women are in the habit of moisturizing a little bit more, coming in the winter and they're itchy. And I say do you take a bar of soap and wash your whole body? Well yes, isn't that what I'm supposed to do? And so it's about trying to educate the public that that is not necessary for hygiene.

NY: I see. What about the allergies and soap?

DR. SANDY SKOTNICKI: So irritation is the main thing because it removes our barrier. Most of the modern day soap is they're called cleansers and they're surfactants. So they are surface activating molecules that produce suds that take away grease. And the traditional soap is, the very first soap was if you go back to the Egyptians, was animal fat and lie or some sort of alkaline, to produce a foam. And that was written in 1500 BC that that could clean off dirt from skin. But the manufacturers, like, they understand that soap needs to be better. You can't take away your natural grease, so they produce synthetic detergents, these are called syndets. So the synthetic detergents are not as bad at removing your own natural oil from your skin. As far as allergy, it's all the added stuff. And that's my sort of area of interest. Like I see people are allergic to personal care products, so fragrances is the biggest culprit, preservatives. Most of the problem with soap is irritation.

NY: Right. What about shampoo?

DR. SANDY SKOTNICKI: Shampoo is a very difficult topic.

NY: [laughs]

DR. SANDY SKOTNICKI: And one that I'm still wrangling with. It's tough because I like washing my hair. I mean, I, you know, I know we've interviewed few people, one fellow from Wisconsin that hasn't shampooed or, you know, used soap for 20 years or something. There are these people, there's many of them. It's a tough one because detergents in shampoos are often sulfate based. It's very, it's anionic, so it’s negatively charged and it really removes a lot of grease but it's also going to remove it from your scalp and your hair. So African-American culture, shampoos don't contain sulfates because it really is damaging to their hair. And a lot of that culture doesn't shampoo actually, they use conditioning cleaners. So they don't actually have detergents in them. The shampoo question is hard because for me to tell patients not to shampoo, it's not going to work. So what I try to do is tell them, you know, if you're getting irritated, itchy scalp or your dermatitis on your scalp is worse, try to look for fragrance free shampoos, shampoos that don't have sulfates, not heavy on botanicals, because a lot of botanicals are irritating and allergenic. I'm forever saying poison ivy is natural, right?

NY: Right.

DR. SANDY SKOTNICKI: So it's just to think about the ingredients that don't have to be in there.

NY: What about the micro biome, which is the bacteria, the good and bad bacteria that's on our skin?

DR. SANDY SKOTNICKI: So totally fascinating. Completely part of this whole discussion. I mean, so the question is is washing and detergent doing something to our micro biome? So this area of research is still in its infancy but we're really starting to get lots of studies come in. They looked at tribes in Brazil, so non-modern lifestyle, and their micro biome is much more diverse than people that live in a modern lifestyle. So soap, detergent washing is affecting our micro biome. What that has done, we don't really know. We know that in infancy, so your micro biome is your normal bacteria on your skin and it teaches our immune system what is good and what's bad, because it can't differentiate it otherwise. So if we, some of the studies are showing that if you wash babies too much in the first year of life, they do have a higher incidence of skin disease later on.

NY: So then why do you think we feel this compulsion to scrub and scrub and lather up all the time?

DR. SANDY SKOTNICKI: It goes back to Val Curtis, with her research about disgust and evolution in general. Before we had indoor plumbing and you know aisles and aisles of soap in the pharmacy people died from infection and it's ingrained in us. The germ theory, Florence Nightingale, like, the Civil War, like all these examples of how soap save thousands and thousands and thousands of lives. And so, you know, your mom and your grandmother were like clean, wash, wash your whole body. And it’s a kind of an after effect of that era and it's ingrained in our social norms.

NY: So ultimately, what's your advice on how much soap we should use to clean ourselves and how often?

DR. SANDY SKOTNICKI: I'm a dermatologist, I can't tell my patients to, you know, not soap. I think everything in moderation. So you don't need to soap your whole body. If you feel disgusting, wash your, so one of my patients put it very aptly, wash your bits.

NY: [laughs]

DR. SANDY SKOTNICKI: So you wash your underarms, your groin, your feet, but you don't need to lather your whole body. Beauty bars are better because they're 10 per cent real soap and 90 per cent synthetic soap and they're less drying, and you only wash your bits.

NY: Thanks so much for your insight on this.

DR. SANDY SKOTNICKI: You're welcome.

NY: Dr. Sandy Skotnicki is a dermatologist and Assistant Professor at the University of Toronto's division of Dermatology. She was with me in our Toronto studio. For another perspective, I'm joined now by Darren Praznik, he's President and CEO of the Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, which represents manufacturers of soaps and shampoos. He's in our Toronto studio. Hello.

DARREN PRAZNIK: Good morning.

NY: So what are the benefits of soap?

DARREN PRAZNIK: Well, I think, actually I think the dermatologist who just spoke was very good in her description of the products and many of the things. Obviously, one of the key important parts of soap is it makes insoluble things soluble, that's its purpose. So if you have dirt, grime, grease, or other things on your body that you want to remove, soap is a very effective way of being able to break it down, make it soluble, and get it off your body and make yourself clean. There's also the importance of hygiene, and I think the dermatologist who just spoke addressed many of those. So there are benefits. But like everything, it should be used in moderation. And times are a little different than they were many generations ago.

NY: Mhm. I mean, many of us work at desk jobs these days, like me sitting here now. We're not out in the dirt and grime all day, not all of us anyway. Do we really need a daily soap scrub?

DARREN PRAZNIK: Well, certainly on our hands, I think we heard that, and public health people would tell you that. You know, Jackie’s question in her article was am I gross or am I on to something? And I would actually say it's really neither. I don't think she's gross. I think, you know, she's very comfortable in the zone she's in and good for her. That's where she wants to be and many people are that way, others choose differently. On the other hand, I don't think we're going to see a decline in the use of people wanting to clean or be clean or use soaps and shampoos. But like the dermatologist said, I think it's very important, everything in moderation. Our times are somewhat different than our grandparents times. And if I may just add this, we're sitting here in Toronto today talking about whether we clean too much. And as someone who comes from Manitoba originally and was minister of northern affairs where we dealt with bringing water into communities. I'm sure some of our listeners out there are saying it's kind of a bizarre conversation about do we clean too much? When we have, still have parts of this country that don't have access to sufficient water and potable water to have those options. I think it's just important to put it in some perspective.

NY: Absolutely. Our dermatologist Sandy Skotnicki said that she sees a lot of patients who use too much soap. She's in Toronto.

DARREN PRAZNIK: Yes.

NY: As you rightly point out, and that it can be detrimental to their skin. How much of a role has the soap industry played in encouraging what she sees as an overuse of soap?

DARREN PRAZNIK: Well first of all, I think she's right. I think we live in a time today where we're very clean. We've been very successful in our public health efforts as a society to eliminate many of the risks that our parents and grandparents and other generations faced. So like all things, there is a residual of that where we have this sense of being super clean. And that's probably as she pointed out, you know, not to our benefit. I think she also touched upon something that's very real, we live with a lot of our past and who we are culturally. And I'm not that old, but I remember the days when the ability to have a shower or bath more than once a week, you know, it was a great thing when we got two bathrooms in our house, and I had relatives who didn't even have running water in their house. So we're still living with that some culturally. And I think what we hopefully will see is the right balance. And as she said, everything in moderation. And I think we get to the right balance. So the discussion we're having here today about not overdoing it, I think is very helpful to getting Canadians in the right balance.

NY: So you represent the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Associations. How much of our sense of cleanliness is about hygiene and how much of it is about the cultural feeling of cleanliness?

DARREN PRAZNIK: Well I think there's a lot to the cultural feeling. And, you know, as manufacturers, we cater, we're very in tune with our consumers’ needs and that's why, and our consumer’s wants and desires, and that's why there's such a variety of products out there on the market with many different options. But, you know, again, we live at a time within our own lifetimes, where the cleanliness with which we live is just leaps and bounds ahead of what it was in our parents and grandparents times. And I think we still live, with some degree, that sense of we have to be very protective. And we see it and not wanting our kids to be out in playing in, you know, the playground and dirt because we're concerned about germs and, you know, we may think we have to wash, shower too many times, et cetera. And so we're still living with some of that. And that's why these kind of discussions are good, because again, it's to put things in the right perspective. And I thought the doctor was very good in doing that.

NY: Mhm. But isn't there a relationship between the way people show concern for their skin's health and the way soap products are marketed?

DARREN PRAZNIK: Well I think the marketing, marketing works if it's reflective of where people are in their thinking and their desire. And again, I think what we have here is a culture that for generations has really concentrated on hygiene and cleanliness for public health reasons. And we're probably living a little bit, as consumers today, with with maybe perhaps overdoing it on occasion somewhat because we live with that past. But having this discussion, all things find their right medium. And again, moderation in all things is probably the right course.

NY: I’m asking a lot of questions I never thought I'd ask in this segment. [chuckles] How often do you use soap and shampoo?

DARREN PRAZNIK: Well, I shower every day. and I tell you, I'm a little old fashion, I'm a bar soap guy.

NY: OK.

DARREN PRAZNIK: And one of the big innovations in soap has been its delivery mechanism, from bar to liquids. And everyone else in my household uses liquid soaps, I'm still the bar guy. But I soap every day and I wash my hands regularly but I don't overdo it. And I'm cognizant of, you know, I still, you always blame me your mother a little bit. My mother was always wash your hands and stay clean. But I do like to have a shower every day, just more for my own sense of cleanliness and my good feeling. But I I don't overdo it in the sense that I'm worried about every single germ that potentially can be out there.

NY: Right. Thanks so much for talking to us.

DARREN PRAZNIK: My pleasure.

NY: Darren Praznik is the President and CEO of the Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, which represents manufacturers of soaps and shampoos. He was in Toronto. We’d love to get your thoughts on this story. Is a soapy scrub a mandatory daily ritual or is it gross to skip it? Or are we better off skipping the suds entirely? You can tweet us @TheCurrentCBC, find us on Facebook or email from our website cbc.ca/thecurrent. OK. Time now to thank the people who put The Current together this week.

[Music: Credit Theme]

ASHLEY MAK: Hello, I'm Ashley Mak, one of the producers here at The Current. This week the show is produced by Idella Sturino, Howard Goldenthal, Ines Calabresi, John Chipman, Sam Colbert, Lara O’brien, Shannon Higgins, Sujata Berry, Kristin Nelson, Liz Hoath, Karin Marley, Samira Mohyeddin, Pacinte Mattar, Stephanie Kampf, and Willow Smith. The Current’s writer is Peter Mitton. Our web producer is Lisa Ayuso, Ruby Buiza is our interactive producer. Transcriptions are provided by Luke Williams and Rignam Wangkhang. Our technical producer is Gary Francis. Our documentary editor is Josh Bloch. With special thanks to Mary-Catherine McIntosh, Michael O’Halloran, Suzanne Dufresne, Anne Penman. Our senior producers are Richard Goddard in Toronto and Cathy Simon in Vancouver. The executive producer of The Current is Kathleen Goldhar.

NY: And of course, thank you as well to The Current’s regular host Anna Maria Tremonti. That's today's edition of The Current. And remember, you can always take The Current, Spark or any of your favourite CBC Radio shows with you. Just use the CBC Radio app. It's free from the App Store or Google Play. And we'll end things off today the way we started, with some music from Drake. This is from his 2016 record Views. The song is One Dance and it features guest vocals from British singer Kyla and the Nigerian artist Wizkid. It was the number one single in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and several other countries too. I'm Nora Young, thanks for listening to the Friday edition of The Current.

[Music: Drake]

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

March 24, 2017 full episode transcript

More Stories Like This