Bad Environmentalism Triumphs in California: Dems Gun for Rubber Ducks

There is good environmentalism and there is bad environmentalism: The first is driven by science and achieves meaningful results that improve public health and the state of the planet; the second is driven by fear and creates the illusion of action.

Perhaps the great Chinese lead paint toy scandal of 2007 added a frisson of urgency to passing AB 1108 in the Senate recently. But the bill banning chemicals that make vinyl toys like rubber ducks flexible is a classic case of bad environmentalism for a very simple reason: It will do nothing meaningful to reduce children's exposure to these chemicals.

As the National Institutes of Health pointed out in a review published in 2000, children are overwhelmingly exposed to these chemicals through food and dust and not toys.

In fact, an infant would have to suck on a rubber toy for approximately two hours a day to absorb enough of the chemicals, known as phthalates, to reach the threshold where there might be a risk. This is why the Consumer Product Safety Commission rejected calls for a nationwide ban on the chemical in 2003.

The CPSC looked at a study of how babies and children mouth toys and found the most avid sucker (the 99th percentile) managed only 12 minutes per day. The European Union's Institute for Health and Consumer Protection came to a similar conclusion in the same year. Toys are just not a problem.

There is another reason why regulatory bodies have been reluctant to ban phthalates and it brings us to the second problem with the legislation: there is very little science behind it.

Look at it this way: We know that lead is toxic; the risks are incontrovertible and well-documented, and we need to be careful that children don't ingest lead from any source, not just toys from China. But as yet, no study has shown phthalates to induce any of the problems environmental activists have warned about, namely birth or reproductive defects, cancer, early onset puberty or neurological damage in humans or infants.

The one study typically cited in support of the ban has been widely misconstrued, particularly by the news media, which claimed that it showed a link between genital and reproductive defects in baby boys and phthalate exposure in mothers.

Actually, all the babies in the study were normal and had normal reproductive functioning. What this complex study found was a correlation between some phthalates and a measurement of the relationship between the position of the genitals and the weight of the baby. This marker was then correlated with an increased rate of partially undescended testicles at the time of measurement.

What does this actually mean? We don't know: key aspects of this study were questioned by an expert review panel under the auspices of the National Institutes of Health, which found some fault with the math, and the idea of the biomarker interesting but unproven. The bottom line is that the children didn't have fertility problems.

But even if you see this study as a potential cause for concern, it still didn't find a problem with the most widely used phthalate in toys, DINP. Furthermore, in experiments on rodents, where they are dosed with huge quantities of the chemical, DINP hasn't been shown to cause reproductive problems.

Even if you believe in the precautionary principle, and in preemptively banning anything at the merest hint of a risk, AB 1108 picks the wrong target: exterminating California's population of rubber ducks makes for good political propaganda, but it is nothing more than a Grinch-like solution to an illusory threat.

Contrast this with the real risks children face, such as being run over by their parents' SUVs in their own driveways (476 killed between 2002 and 2006, according to the group Kids and Cars) -- or the risk of being killed by a falling television (one in 3,797,997 for a child aged four and under in 2006, based on data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System).

Okay, so the risk from falling televisions is extremely small, but the point is that we can still put numbers on the problem and quantify the risk. Not so with phthalates, where these kinds of numbers just don't exist. The risk, in other words, is hypothetical.

And this brings us to the underlying problem with California's legislative obsession with ridding toys of these chemicals: it distracts from the kind of meaningful, evidence-based public health interventions that could make measurable difference to mothers and children, such as making women more aware that they need to take vitamins two months prior to conception, as well as after; increasing the number of level three neonatal intensive care units (better care for premature babies), and more efforts to discourage smoking and alcohol and substance abuse during pregnancy.

All of these would have a significant, demonstrable impact on maternal-fetal health. But, unfortunately, these issues all lack the legislative simplicity, the gut-wrenching, "we're taking action" appeal of declaring an illusory risk to children and then, with nothing more demanding than a show of hands, solving it.

Comments

[LarryG]

There are huge problems with the precautionary principle (PP). Time and time again it has been demonstrated that the PP has had the wrong effect. If in fact low amounts of a chemical or toxin could actually have a beneficial effect (instead of a presumed deleterious effect), then employing the PP dooms some people. For example...
Dititalis is a natural, highly toxic substance in large quantities. However, it saves millions of people from heart attacks when used in small quantities. The precautionary principle would ban digitalis - to the detriment of millions.

In my field of expertise it has been demonstrated in thousands of studies that low doses of radiation can be beneficial. However the PP proponents declare that large doses are harmful, therefore we should be overly cautious at low doses. Our society has literally spent billions on "protecting" us from low dose radiation - billions that could have been used for much better purposes, say perhaps feeding a starving child in Africa.

I am amazed at those who are often proponents of PP will use herbs, vitamins, supplements, magnetic (radiation) bracelets and other things of a dubious (and maybe harmful) nature. I have three friends like this.

The precautionary principle can be extremely destructive because resources are put into something from which we do not need "protection". We could be doing so much to help developing countries and poor people, but we choose to spend our money on worthless "fixes". It's shameful. -lg

[TrevorButterworth]

Hi Altohone

But if you were to be consistent in holding to the overprecautionary principle, you couldn't drink coffee or eat vegetables. All contain naturally occuring chemicals which can cause cancer at high doses in lab animals; indeed, one could argue that such items are more dangerous than phthalaes. But the fundamental principle of toxicology is that the dose makes the poison. You can poison yourself by drinking too much water.

Most of the diseases that are increasing are a product of lifestyle and diet. The impact of not exercising, poor maternal nutrition and so forth are so much greater in magnitude than any possible risk from trace elements of chemicals in toys that eliminating these chemicals has no real meaning for public health.

As for increasing diseases, lung cancer is increasing among women because many continue to smoke; breast cancer can be linked to many factors, including alcohol consumption and ivf treatment, but, so far, not phthalates. Other cancers only appear to be increasing because the population of the U.S. is trending upwards in age and cancer is a disease of old age (and, as with breast cancer, more sensitive screening identifies tumors earlier).

We need to focus on real problems that have real solutions - but that involves money, hard work, and getting people to change their lifestyles. Banning phthalates is health policy on the cheap. It requires people to do nothing, and comforts them with the illusion of safety.

[altohone]

Thanks for the reply.

If you re-read my comment though you'd notice I specifically said man-made chemicals and personal choices.

Your excuse for increasing disease may well be a factor, possibly even the main one, but the average American has over 200 man-made chemicals in measurable amounts. Everything from fire retardents to PCB's, pesticides and rocket fuel.

Just because science isn't yet capable, or willing, to discover their effects doesn't mean they aren't having effects. They are potential "real problems", and there are solutions if we're willing. There is "no real meaning for public health" because we're ignorant and aren't really putting money into studying the problem.

You can blame age and habits all you want, but every year new chemicals are invented and used without regard to potential harm when short-term studies on rats show minimal potential for harm. Your "so far, not pthalates" means just that, so far. The list of chemicals that were later proven dangerous... everything from asbestos to Vioxx keeps growing. So far doesn't cut it.

At the bare minimum, we should stop adding to the chemical load we all carry... only allowing new chemicals to be used when science shows definitively there is NO threat. That doesn't mean banning their use, just uses that allow them to be released into the environment.

As science improves and budgets allow, we should then target the ones already in use in a methodical manner.

We can discourage self-destructive behaviors simultaneously.

[altohone]

I'm not disputing your post, but I'm a believer in the overprecautionary principle.

If any man-made chemical shows up in measurable amounts in our blood or tissues, or that of other animals or plants, we should work to eliminate all sources.

Pie in the sky I know, but something(s) is causing the increased levels of diseases we face... or at least make it a personal choice, not something we can't avoid.