No, this is not a story about great deals on credit cards, although it does entail squandering money. It's about plying on consumer fears. And it's about science literacy -- the danger of making public policy based on out-of-context facts and ideology.
Consider the latest salvo in the advocacy campaign to demonize plasticizers -- the chemical additives, also known as phthalates, that help make plastics flexible, transparent and durable enough for use in myriad ways, from cabling to pipes to vinyl products in cars to flooring, and in many personal care products and detergents.
The saga began with an announcement last summer by Friends of the Earth in Germany that it was putting "daycare centers under the microscope." The invocation of a laboratory-like investigation made the effort sound kind of science-y, but it's not. Science begins with questions, but this campaign began with predetermined answers -- and simplistic ones.
The Bund, as FoE Germany is called, launched "Future Without Poison" and a companion project, "Celebrities Against Poison," with a stated objective to prove that Germany kindergartners faced chemical castration from polyvinyl (PVC) plastics. It claimed that plasticizers used in soft plastic vinyl, electrical cabling, tumbling mats and other products commonly found in classrooms caused future sterility in males and disrupted female sexual development. It was determined to prove that kindergartens are plasticizer dust bowls.
To make its predetermined case, it enlisted volunteer sympathizers to scour their children's schools for dust. What did Bund conclude in a report, released in early April, from this mash-up of science and activism? The lab found (drum roll): "In all dust samples plasticizers were detected." Two thirds of the dust samples had higher levels of microscopic dust particles from various types of plasticizers than found in its unscientific collection of dust by activists from "typical" German homes -- presumably their own homes, but it's not clear from the summary, and Bund would not respond to my email inquiry -- while one third did not.
The complete study, which Friends of the Earth posted on the website, is discouraging to anyone with at least an 8th grade understanding of science. It was crude to the point of farcical. It made no distinction between low and high molecular weight phthalates, which have different applications and environmental and health impacts. The 60 schools from which activist sympathizers sent in dust samples were not objectively chosen -- they were self-selected by campaigners. What were the standards set for the dust collecting moms to ensure the integrity of what was collected? None.
Finding plasticizers in dust is neither surprising nor necessarily a cause for alarm. Soft plastics are ubiquitous. Plasticizers are effective and in most cases ready alternatives are not available. The only important issue is whether they might cause harm. Yet, the campaigners never directly address that hypothesis -- it is just assumed. But the evidence that phthalates cause serious harm in humans is scientifically thin.
Friends of the Earth claims that classroom dust containing microscopic plasticizers is a proxy for the release of phthalate outgasses (aka, offgasses; vapors slow released from soft plastic that campaigners claim causes everything from coughs to cancer) but there's no scientific evidence that outgasses are dangerous. Scientists have not set any limits for indoor exposures to phthalates because they've found no reason to believe they're harmful to children. Phthalate plasticizers are tightly bound within PVC, even in dust particles.
According to the latest report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, released in March, phthalates do not pose a health hazard in classrooms or in any usual way in which someone might be exposed to soft plastics. "Phthalates are metabolized and excreted quickly and do not accumulate in the body," it concluded. That reconfirmed a comprehensive study conducted in 2004 by the Children's National Medical Center and the George Washington University School of Medicine that showed no adverse effects in organ or sexual functioning in adolescent children exposed to phthalates as neonates. The same team evaluated infants in a 2010 study and reconfirmed the negative findings. A recent study has shown that even high levels of DEHP have shown no effect on the genital development of marmosets -- let alone humans.
In sum, no studies using oral doses have found evidence that plasticizers are toxic in humans or are likely to cause cancer or have strong estrogenic affects, as critics often allege. No science based agency in the US, Europe or elsewhere has found direct links to human health. The only potentially worrisome results are limited to ambiguous mammal studies in which animals have been exposed to doses hundreds of times what humans could face.
But Friends of the Earth appears disinterested in established science. It circulated its study in the form of a media release disguised as a news article, headlining, "Many German kindergartens have three times the level of dangerous chemicals than an average household, posing serious health risks to children." It claimed kindergarteners are threatened by sterility, breast cancer, testicular cancer and that their mother's face having more children with birth defects because of using gym mats and other classroom-related plastic materials.
Distressingly, the FoE report ricocheted throughout the Internet and was picked up in news reports on every continent. In not one instance did the report put the "findings" in the context of the most recent science studies. They just propagated FoE's alarmist contentions. Then no one benefits.
Jon Entine is director of the Genetic Literacy Project at Stats/George Mason University and author of Crop Chemophobia: Is Precaution Killing the Green Revolution?
Follow Jon Entine on Twitter: www.twitter.com/runjonrun
or oils, and heat? It appears to dissolve, even if it was only warm. What about metals and minerals combined with plastics and heat? Ever try to remove the plastic? Hence, I think,without even getting overly scientific about this, it would make sense to safely presume the plastics capable of melting into our body tissues and clog our micro-tubules in a very detrimental way. Question is, can the harm be undone?
It is disingenuous for Mr. Entine to maintain that there is little scientific evidence that phthalates pose a threat to human health. The evidence has been mixed, still animal, epidemiological and biomonitoring studies have raised enough consistent red flags to warrant further investigation.
I was especially troubled by the way he mischaracterized a study by researchers at the National Children’s Medical Center, leaving the impression that it definitively demonstrated phthalates do not cause any long-term health effects. Far from being “comprehensive”, as Entine stated, this was a small study involving 19 teen-agers who had been exposed to heavy doses of the phthalate DEHP when they were hospitalized as infants. The teens showed no signs of health problems, which was encouraging. But according to the study authors, at least 250 participants were needed to produce statistically significant results. The authors had hoped to do that larger study, seeing it as a way to determine once and for all whether we need to be concerned about the health effects of phthalates. But the $10 million price tag was higher than either the federal government or private industry was willing to underwrite. So, we’re still wondering if phthalates are safe.
Susan Freinkel, author of Plastic: A Toxic Love Story
I replied with warm words to your comment on your website, where you wrote a far more measured analysis, making many good points. Why did you feel the need to go on the "attack" here? Here you take numerous statements I made out of context, implying I said or meant things that are not in the piece. You accuse me of being disingenuous for writing there is little scientific evidence that phthalates pose a threat to humans. Yet on your own site you acknowledge a key research study exonerating pthalates was "encouraging" and you know there are no human studies considered persuasive that contradict those encouraging conclusions. No government scientific body (as opposed to a politically-based regulatory agency) in the world has found pthalates "harmful to human health"--so how am I being "disingenuous? I never stated that impact of pthalates or any chemical should be ignored. That would be anti-science. And why do you imply that I argue against "further investigation"--just the opposite. I argue ONLY for rigorous scientific consistency--"weight of evidence" based research. There is no question that the weight of evidence suggests that pthalates pose no serious danger to humans--and that's what scientifically disingenuous advocacy groups like Friends of the Earth argue--and that's scientifically disgraceful. New research should be science based--asking transparent questions, not trying to prove predetermined ones. Can't we agree to that? Isn't that good science? Please, cut the polemics. You're too smart for that.
It was difficult to rebut your analysis in 250 words, which is why the write-up on my website is more measured. I don't see how my comments take yours out of context - the thrust of your argument is that there is thin evidence for the dangers of phthalates.I disagree. As I said before, there is a lot of epidemiological work suggesting some phthalates, notably DEHP, may have health impacts. You are right -- this hasn't been definitvely established, but neither would I say that the weight of evidence exonerates phthalates. I do not consider the National Children's Medical Center to have been a "key" study -- it was too small to be statistically significant. If a larger study were to find the same results, that would be good news indeed, considering the ubiquity of phthalates. But we haven't seen that study yet. You keep saying no government scientific body has found phthalates harmful to human health, yet the National Toxicology Panel concluded there are grounds for "concern" that exposure to DEHP can affect reproductive development in boys under the age of one and the Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Health concluded that exposure of critically ill neonates to DEHP was a "serious concern." Yet hospitals and neonatal critical care units continue to use vinyl medical devices that can leach DEHP in treating neonates.
On which side is the ELF (Earth Liberation Front)?
I think that answers my question!
--Jon Entine, www.jonentine.com
Somebody with money has an ax to grind, much as has been done to margarines and other products we use every day. Does somebody in Germany think they have an alternative to plastic if they could just get the ubiquitous stuff out of their way?
While there are a lot of harmful things in this world the major problem with plastic is disposal. The stuff does last just about forever. But harm to humans from additives is just somebody trying to make a profit from fear.
73 pages ot studies. Get back to us.
"Third trimester urines of women enrolled in the Mount Sinai Children's Environmental Health Study between 1998 and 2002 (n=404) were analyzed for phthalate metabolites and BPA. djusted general linear models increasing log-transformed low molecular weight (LMW) phthalate metabolite concentrations were associated with greater social deficits (β=1.53, 95% CI 0.25-2.8). Among the subscales, LMWP were also associated with poorer Social Cognition (β=1.40, 95% CI 0.1-2.7); Social Communication (β=1.86, 95% CI 0.5-3.2); and Social Awareness (β=1.25, 95% CI 0.1-2.4), but not for Autistic Mannerisms or Social Motivation. No significant association with BPA was found (β=1.18, 95% CI -0.75, 3.11). Prenatal phthalate exposure was associated with childhood social impairment in a multiethnic urban population. Even mild degrees of impaired social functioning in otherwise healthy individuals can have very important adverse effects over a child's lifetime. These results extend our previous finding of atypical neonatal and early childhood behaviors in relation to prenatal phthalate exposure."
If prenatal exposure in humans has "no relevance whatsoever to human exposure of [sic] phtalates" then I don't know what does. And I have plenty of science comprehension, thank you. I understand every word of this abstract. (Comment length does not permit the whole abstract to be posted here.)
Speaking for myself, I hope phthlates and BPA are feminizing and reduce human fertility. The world could be a better place.