2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003

How Activist Groups Run The News
Trevor Butterworth, January 31, 2007
Throughout January, Americans were warned about the risks of chemicals in common products. But was this a case of public interest journalism or lousy reporting?

If there is an internal analogue to global warming, it is the specter of industrial and environmental chemicals in our bodies, and what they might be doing to us – even at levels that until recently were undetectable. In October 2006, David Ewing Duncan had his blood tested for a National Geographic feature, titled, The Pollution Within; 165 chemical “pollutants” turned up in his bloodstream.

“I'm healthy, and as far as I know have no symptoms associated with chemical exposure. In large doses, some of these substances, from mercury to PCBs and dioxins, the notorious contaminants in Agent Orange, have horrific effects. But many toxicologists—and not just those who have ties to the chemical industry—insist that the minuscule smidgens of chemicals inside us are mostly nothing to worry about.

‘In toxicology, dose is everything,’ says Karl Rozman, a toxicologist at the University of Kansas Medical Center, "and these doses are too low to be dangerous." One part per billion (ppb), a standard unit for measuring most chemicals inside us, is like putting half a teaspoon (two milliliters) of red dye into an Olympic-size swimming pool. What's more, some of the most feared substances, such as mercury, dissipate within days or weeks—or would if we weren't constantly re-exposed.”

This is the context that news reports consistently overlook when reporting chemical warnings. But that’s not all. The following list of news organizations all reported that your health either is or might be at risk from common products in your home containing phthalates; and yet, no-one bothered to check these claims with any of the regulatory bodies in the United States, or the expert bodies that have carried out the most extensive reviews of the safety of these chemicals, such as the National Toxicology Program, or even bothered to contact a toxicologist at a local university or hospital. None of the journalists appear to have read any of the scientific papers to see whether the claims being made were an accurate reflection of the data or the consensus among scientists.

Instead, these stories were all sourced to a group of inter-related environmental activist organizations that claim to be acting as watchdogs for public health. The question is whether journalists are doing the public any favors by giving these watchdogs a soapbox instead of doing some fact checking and seeking out independent expert testimony. 

“Make-up, shampoo, lotion and the countless products that fill our bathrooms all contain chemicals precarious to our health.”

“Females are not the only ones at high risk. The EWG online research center shows that one in a hundred men apply at least 15 products daily. In fact, anyone using cologne or perfume, deodorant or even hair mousse is at risk for chemical contact.”

Sources cited for apparent danger:

“the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nonprofit agency dedicated to public health and the environment…”

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, another nonprofit public health organization…” [Note - the EWG is a member of this coalition]

Comment from the National Toxicology Progam, or other relevant expert body: none
Comment from independent toxicologist: none
Actual peer-reviewed research cited: none
Regulatory guidelines cited and explained: none

Sources cited for apparent danger:

Consumer Reports

You can check the "Environmental Working Group's" website for much more information. (CLICK ABOVE LINK)

Comment from the National Toxicology Progam, or other relevant expert body: none
Comment from independent toxicologist: none
Actual peer-reviewed research cited: none
Regulatory guidelines cited and explained: none

Headline: Denenberg: Some Ingredients To Avoid And Some Rules For Action When Using Cosmetics
News organization: The Bulletin, Philadelphia
Date: January 25, 2007
Risks reported:

“Take the case study of phthalates, a family of chemicals used in cosmetics, which critics say may pose significant health risks. They're found in nail polishes, perfumes, and other cosmetics used everyday. According to Consumers Union (CU), phthalates may "be linked to developmental and reproductive health risks." The industry says they're safe. But can you trust the industry?

Sources cited for apparent danger:

Now comes word that most cosmetic ingredients have never been publicly assessed for safety, according to a senior scientist at Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports.

With no required safety testing, cosmetics companies can use almost any chemical they want, regardless of risks, according to the Environmental Working Group

Comment from the National Toxicology Progam, or other relevant expert body: none
Comment from independent toxicologist: none
Actual peer-reviewed research cited: none
Regulatory guidelines cited and explained: none

Headline: Earth Talk (column)
News organization: Ventura County Reporter
Date: January 25, 2007
Risks reported:

Another common yet toxic ingredient in conventional nail polish is a chemical plasticizer known as dibutyl phthalate (DBP). According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit research and advocacy organization that campaigns to educate consumers about the health risks of cosmetics, studies have linked DBP to underdeveloped genitals and other reproductive system problems in newborn boys. [There are no such studies; this is a mischaracterization of one study]

Sources cited for apparent danger:

The Environmental Working Group

Comment from the National Toxicology Progam, or other relevant expert body: none
Comment from independent toxicologist: none
Actual peer-reviewed research cited: none
Regulatory guidelines cited and explained: Centers for Disease Control biomonitoring data cited, but significance not explained.

Headline: Two new laws affect industry and consumers
News organization: Alameda Times Star
Date: January 22, 2007
Risks reported:

"PI, one of the leading makers of high-end nail polish — a brand many salons use — has said it will take out dibutyl phthalate (DBP), a reproductive toxin. Sally Hansen followed suit soon after, Lee said.

Safecosmetics.org"

Comment from the National Toxicology Progam, or other relevant expert body: none
Comment from independent toxicologist: none
Actual peer-reviewed research cited: none
Regulatory guidelines cited and explained: none

Headline: It’s easy being green
News organization: The Daily News Tribune (Massachusetts)
Date: January 19, 2007
Risks reported:

"According to Brody, those products and thousands more contain phthalates, a toxin that can cause cancer, birth defects, early onset puberty and impedes neurological development, as well as phenols and parabens.

'These affect hormones,' she said. 'Even that new car smell is phthalates.'" [Just to give you a sense of how rigorously these groups do their research, phthalates are odorless]

Sources cited for apparent danger

"The Silent Spring Institute is based in Newton, and is a nonprofit scientific research organization dedicated to expanding knowledge of the relationships between the environment and women's health, specifically breast cancer. It was founded in 1994.

Safecosmetics.org"

Comment from the National Toxicology Progam, or other relevant expert body: none
Comment from independent toxicologist: none
Actual peer-reviewed research cited: none
Regulatory guidelines cited and explained: none

Further reading
STATS on estimating risks from chemicals

STATS on phthalates

Toy Tantrums - The Debate Over the Safety of Phthalates

Connecticut’s Biomonitoring Stunt

Mass Hysteria About “Toxic” Toys is Spreading