Phthalate fallacies: Reporters boost another flawed anti-chemical study

The Washington Post and other news outlets failed their readers last week with a story promoting a grossly flawed phthalate study accompanied by a number of vague and unsupported editorial views of one of its authors – a long-standing phthalate opponent who has made a career of misleading the public regarding the safety of this thoroughly tested and widely used class of chemicals. 

The media chose not to do any independent analysis of a key U.S. FDA finding, which the agency has reaffirmed on three separate occasions: no credible evidence connects phthalates in food packaging with any human health risk.   

Reporters also ignored their responsibility to scrutinize the conclusions of the study at the center of the story, which falsely alleged that some 356,000 cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths globally were attributed to exposure to the phthalate DEHP. Instead, they generally accepted the study’s findings at face value, and used statements from activists who’ve spent the majority of their careers opposing phthalates to corroborate the study’s claims.  

News stories were replete with references from an anti-phthalate advocate, Dr. Leo Trasande, who used terms such as  “may,” “could,” and “probably” in an attempt to form a causal leap between phthalates and potential human health risks. That simply isn’t good enough, and flies in the face of even the broadest definition of responsible journalism. And it falls far below even the lowest evidence standard that would otherwise warrant national media attention.   

This study – like many we encounter regularly – has no scientific credibility and isn’t worth the digital ink it’s printed on. It was also partially funded by Beyond Petrochemicals, an activist group established by Michael Bloomberg to attack the chemical industry. Let’s consider a few critical details from the study the Post chose to withhold from its readers.

Questionable data

First, the study’s conclusion that DEHP exposure is linked to CVD mortality is based on very weak evidence. As the study itself notes:

•  “Certain regions, such as Africa, had fewer studies available on phthalates, which may result in higher error of estimated values.” 

• In Europe, the researchers only had access to data from certain countries, and those studies sometimes excluded adult age groups, “limiting the generalisability of their exposure measurements.” 

• For the United States, “estimates in this model are primarily based on findings from a single study…” 

Put simply, the researchers can’t attribute elevated CVD deaths to DEHP exposure if they don’t know how much of the chemical these diverse populations are exposed to. This limitation led the study authors to concede that their results may prove unreliable:

“This burden model is the initial analysis of its kind as [sic] is subject to recalculation for reliability.”

In fact, there is so much uncertainty in the study’s model that it could have been used to argue that zero deaths are associated with DEHP exposure.

Confounding variables

Research that links chemical exposure with disease risk often runs into the reality that health conditions like CVD have multiple causes that can amplify each other. For instance, smoking and obesity are known causes of CVD that create a synergistic effect that increases risk beyond the sum of their individual impacts. This very well might explain the CVD risk this new study attributes to phthalate exposure, again as the authors themselves acknowledge:

“For example, an Italian study documented associations between PVC microplastics, which commonly contain phthalates, and adverse CV outcomes … However, this single country analysis was not confirmed in another industrialising country … which may have different dietary habits, cigarette smoke exposure, physical activity and other cardiovascular risks.”

It can be argued the link between CVD risk and DEHP exposure is entirely coincidental. People who smoke, eat unhealthy diets and limit their exercise – documented causes of CVD – are also exposed to phthalates. But it is entirely unproven that phthalate exposure on its own can cause CVD. This is a point McGill University chemist Dr. Joe Schwarz has stressed as well. 

A related possibility, overlooked by the study authors, is that patients treated for CVD face higher DEHP exposure due to their treatment, rather than DEHP causing their cardiovascular disease. This phthalate is used in lifesaving medical equipment, including IV bags, tubing, catheters, and blood bags. It is reasonable to suggest that individuals with CVD have greater exposure to DEHP due to their reliance on these devices. 

Conclusion

Bottom line: the press uncritically promoted a study funded and conducted by anti-chemical activists. These articles were each several hundred words, yet they gave an industry representative just two sentences to respond to all the claims made in the research. This wasn’t balanced, unbiased journalism: It was slanted advocacy designed to manipulate rather than inform. The public deserves better. 

Fibbing About Phthalates: Safe Piping Matters Distorts EPA Report On DINP

Misinformation about the safety of PVC runs rampant online. Often it comes from reporters who simply don’t know any better. But this explanation doesn’t excuse organizations that claim to be authorities on PVC safety and spread blatant falsehoods.

Consider Safe Piping Matters (SPM). Partnering with “experts from academia,” the website’s About Us page boasts, “...we provide information and insights on ways to reduce toxins in our bodies and enhance the health of our environment.” Surely the “information and insights” they dispense should be factual, yet we’ve found multiple examples of the site badly misleading its readers.

The latest instance comes from an article titled EPA Targets Chemical in PVC Pipe. SPM alleges that use of the phthalate DINP in PVC piping and other construction materials poses a risk to human health. The article cites a recent evaluation of the chemical by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

There’s just one problem: the EPA's findings show that most uses of DINP pose essentially no risk to human health. Safe Piping Matters completely distorted the EPA’s conclusion.

EPA: No risk from PVC exposure

First, it's crucial to understand the scope and specifics of the EPA's evaluation. Companies that manufacture and use DINP asked the agency to review the safety of this phthalate. The EPA did not “target” DINP. The simple fact is that industry and federal regulators routinely collaborate to help protect public health. The DINP evaluation is one such example. 

The agency’s final risk assessment specifies that out of the 47 conditions of use (COUs) for DINP, only four are associated with an unreasonable risk of injury to human health, and these are strictly related to industrial exposures under very specific conditions:

• Use of DINP in spray adhesives and sealants with sprayers that generate mists with high concentrations of DINP. The unreasonable risk arises when workers are exposed to DINP in the air without any protection for eight hours.

• Application of DINP-containing paints and coatings using high-pressure sprayers.

These applications represent merely three percent of the DINP production volume in the US, the EPA notes. If it needs to be said, none of these applications have anything to do with realistic, everyday uses of construction materials, including PVC pipe. Most important in terms of public health is this conclusion from the agency:

“EPA did not identify risk of injury to human health for consumers or the general population or the environment that would contribute to the unreasonable risk of DINP.”  

Bottom line: The risk evaluation confirms that the migration of DINP from construction products into the environment or through consumer use does not lead to harmful exposure levels. The narrative presented by Safe Piping Matters misinterprets these critical findings. It suggests a broader implication for the use of DINP in PVC that the EPA's data does not support.

SPM would have us believe it’s an independent organization advocating for “safe piping.” Yet, given the group’s promotion of metallic pipe industry talking points, its repeated attacks on PVC pipe and its failure to disclose any of its funding sources, we’re left wondering: why hasn’t any news organization asked SPM if it’s ever received financial support (directly or indirectly) either from a competing interest (or agenda-driven opponent) of the PVC pipe industry?   

Conclusion 

Put simply, the building and construction sectors should feel confident in using DINP-containing products, especially in applications like PVC piping. The EPA's thorough, peer-reviewed risk evaluation supports that these uses are safe for workers and consumers alike, provided they adhere to standard practices and do not engage in very specific high-risk exposure scenarios. 

Misconceptions fuel confusion about PVC Pipe. Transparency is the antidote

When it comes to PVC, the public is usually subjected to agenda-driven commentary laced with half-truths and exaggeration disguised as journalism. The reporters who produce this coverage take anti-plastic activists at face value and rarely give the other side an opportunity to correct the record. 

We’re pleased to report that we’ve found a refreshing exception in this Water Finance & Management piece by Anne Austin titled “Americans Deserve Accurate Information about PVC Pipe for Drinking Water.” The article fairly surveys the relevant science, corrects common misconceptions and encourages everyone involved in this discussion to cut “through the noise” and “ensure that America’s infrastructure investments are grounded in safety and innovation.” 

We couldn’t agree more. Let’s examine some of Austin’s takeaways.

PVC’s proven track record

PVC has been a staple material in water infrastructure since the 1950s because it’s affordable, easy to install and corrosion resistant—all of which make it superior to alternative materials currently on the market. This helps explain why so many municipal water utilities are dumping their aging iron systems for PVC. Indeed the material‘s durability and affordability have made it ideal for a broad range of applications, as Austin points out early in her piece:

“Used safely for nearly a century, PVC provides essential benefits in applications ranging from water and sewer systems to medical devices, flooring and even automotive components, where it helps reduce fuel consumption and emissions.”

Fabricated controversy

Unfortunately, the public conversation around PVC has drifted far from these crucial facts. Austin argues that PVC pipes have been wrongly maligned because of misunderstood chemicals used in their production, especially vinyl chloride. Critics allege that vinyl chloride can “leach” from PVC pipes into drinking, a claim that betrays an ignorance of basic chemistry, which we’ve refuted on multiple occasions. 

As Austin explains, once vinyl chloride molecules are bonded together, they form PVC, “a chemically stable and non-toxic material.” It’s comparable, she adds, to boiling an egg. Once the egg is cooked, it can’t revert to its original form. The bottom line:

“The safety of PVC piping has been thoroughly evaluated for more than 70 years by federal regulatory agencies, independent certification organizations, and scientific studies. U.S.-made PVC pipe consistently meets or exceeds rigorous safety standards…”

Getting the lead out

With the EPA mandating the removal of lead water service lines across the US, activists have launched a campaign to oppose the expanding use of PVC piping. They say using plastic in place of lead would merely swap one problematic material for another, advocating for alternatives like copper or steel. But Austin has the facts on hand to defuse this spurious claim:

“According to a Utah State University study, PVC is the most commonly used and best-performing material in America’s water systems, boasting the lowest break rate compared to other pipe materials. Its durability and immunity to corrosion give it an impressive 100-plus year service life, far outlasting legacy piping.” 

This goes to important economic and environmental arguments for PVC water pipe: its century-plus service life saves taxpayers billions of dollars and cuts greenhouse emissions generated by inferior piping alternatives; these materials are heavier and less durable, meaning they have to be constructed, transported and replaced more frequently, all of which pumps CO2 into the atmosphere.  In other words, PVC is the most sustainable choice. 

Transparency is key

Austin ends by emphasizing the importance of transparency and public education. She helpfully calls for a balanced discourse in which all of the relevant evidence is freely discussed so Americans can make an informed decision. “By cutting through the noise and focusing on facts,” she writes, “we can ensure that America’s infrastructure investments are grounded in safety and innovation, providing reliable, sustainable solutions for generations to come.”

False balance: WaPo pits experts vs activists on PVC pipe, misleads readers along the way

Balanced reporting is one of the bedrock principles of journalism. The news media is supposed to present all sides of a story so the public gets a comprehensive view of the topic in question. But this principle is easily abused by journalists with an agenda who seek to fabricate a scandal when one doesn’t actually exist.

The Washington Post deployed this deceptive tactic in textbook fashion on November 20, telling readers that replacing toxic lead water lines with PVC pipe “could carry its own risks.” Although conceding that “water officials argue plastic pipes pose no health risks,” the Post immediately followed up by warning that “some advocacy groups are raising the alarm.” 

The problem with this framing is that PVC pipe is safe, durable, and affordable — which is why city managers everywhere are using it to revitalize their crumbling water infrastructure. Now, the media is responding by treating agenda-driven ideologues as objective experts with no stake in the issue. 

As a result, the Post story is laden with blatant scientific mistakes and half-truths that will badly mislead the paper’s audience. Let’s examine the specifics.

Vinyl chloride isn’t PVC

The Post correctly reported two facts: PVC pipe is made with a chemical called vinyl chloride (VCM), and “Many industry and water officials argue plastic pipes pose no health risks.” 

But the story went off the rails after that. The Post then asserted that “There is an ongoing debate about the amount of vinyl chloride that’s in PVC pipes and whether the substance can leach into drinking water.”

Simply put, there’s no debate about vinyl chloride leaching into drinking water. As we pointed out to another news outlet just days ago, contaminants in drinking water–regardless of the pipe material that transports the water–are tightly regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The agency’s drinking water regulations are “legally enforceable primary standards” that “protect public health by limiting the levels of contaminants in drinking water.” This includes vinyl chloride. 

The Post excluded this key piece of context and argued that “environmental advocates are sounding the alarm about the threat of exposure through drinking water.” The proper response to this claim is, “so what?” Environmental activist groups say lots of things about plastic — most of it completely false. The billionaire-funded NGO quoted in the Post story, Beyond Plastics, is infamous for deceiving the public about the safety of vinyl chloride, as we documented here.

Resurrecting cancer myths

For instance, The Post notes that activists claim “Vinyl chloride has been linked with liver, brain, lung and breast cancer, and other health problems.” That’s terribly misleading, because the last case of cancer linked to very high industrial vinyl chloride exposure was reported in 1974. Such cases have been “virtually eliminated,” the CDC concluded more than 20 years ago. 

The public in 2024 need not worry because studies have found that finished PVC products (like water pipes) contain essentially undetectable amounts of vinyl chloride that cannot cause harm. The CDC has also concluded that “the majority of the general population is not expected to be exposed through ingestion of drinking water,” which means their cancer risk from VCM is all but non-existent. 

Rather than report these facts from credible public health agencies, the Post quoted a researcher “who … hasn’t specifically studied PVC piping, but he said based on other PVC products he has studied, he believes many chemicals can leach from pipes, too.” We’ll side with the CDC and EPA over a single scientist who lacks the appropriate expertise every time. 

Conclusion

Balance remains an important standard in journalism; however, it should not be used to direct readers away from the truth. If one side of a “debate” is right and the other is wrong, the media has an obligation to say so to the public. Scaremongering may earn the Post more ad revenue, but it does everybody else a terrible disservice. 

FDA Thrice Rejects Ortho-Phthalate Ban Attempt by Activists With Nothing Better to Do

For the third time in three years, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has sided with science and rejected a petition from anti-plastic groups demanding that phthalates be banned from food contact uses. As Chemical Watch News reported on October 30:

“The FDA concluded that the NGOs’ objections ‘did not provide a basis’ to convince the agency to deviate from its earlier decision to allow for the continued use of some ortho-phthalates in food contact applications.” …

Phthalates are chemicals used to make some plastics more flexible and durable. They’ve been safely utilized since the 1930s in food-contact materials. This recent controversy over their application in food containers began in 2016, when the activist coalition initially filed its petition with the FDA.

After more than five years of reviewing the evidence, FDA rejected the petition in May 2022, then repudiated it again on appeal in July 2023. Refusing to take a hint, the NGO coalition reformulated its complaints and filed yet another appeal. The FDA was still having none of it, concluding that the petition treated all food-contact phthalates (most of which are no longer in use) as essentially a single chemical:

“Fundamental to the petition was the claim that all 28 phthalates could be reviewed together as a class, applying data from one chemical to the entire set of 28. The FDA assessment found that available information does not support grouping all 28 phthalate chemicals into a single class assessment.”

Of course, phthalates are a broad group of compounds with diverse chemical properties and applications. Evaluating any one of them based on data related to another makes little sense. Unfortunately, this is the kind of sophomoric reasoning we’ve come to expect from agenda-driven NGOs: make scientifically dubious assertions and hope that no one notices.

The proper way to identify the health effects of exposure to any chemical is to … assess the health effects of that chemical. Formally known as a “risk assessment,” this approach is widely endorsed by the science community as the most reliable method of evaluating the safety of any product. When public health agencies like the National Toxicology Program evaluate phthalates, this is the method they employ. 

Kevin Ott, executive director of the Flexible Vinyl Alliance, nicely summarized the situation: the activist assault on phthalates has forced the FDA to re-litigate settled science. As he told Chemical Watch:

“In overruling the latest objections, ‘FDA has once again relied on up-to-date data on these substances, again coming down on the side of science and safety,’ Ott said. The use of phthalates in food contact applications is minimal. And given limited FDA resources, these repeated citizen petitions are ‘detrimental’ to improving public health, he said.”

Repeated failed attempts to ban ortho-phthalates — by those who refuse to accept sound science — are a waste of taxpayer money and place a tremendous burden on the FDA’s limited resources. These petitioners are about themselves, not the public interest.

Media, Activists Should Stick To Facts On PVC Pipe

The United States is about to embark on a massive infrastructure project courtesy of the Biden Administration: replacing millions of lead water lines to protect the public from the known risks of exposure to the toxic metal. Facilitated by the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, the effort to eliminate lead pipes was boosted by research showing that lead can seep into drinking water and “cause irreversible developmental delays, difficulty learning and behavioral problems among children,” as the Washington Post reported recently. 

The project will likely cost several billion dollars and take a decade or more to complete, but before it can even begin, we have to ask an important question: what material should replace the lead pipes? We’ve argued, at length, that PVC is the optimal choice. 

With a lower price tag, smaller carbon footprint and longer service life than any other piping material, PVC is a perfect solution for municipalities looking to replace aging lead lines—which is why so many US towns and cities have turned to the material to supply their residents with clean drinking water.

But not everyone will acknowledge these facts.  Some environmental activists and their allies in the press have used the Biden Administration’s plan as an opportunity to rehash misleading claims about PVC pipe. To make sure the public has the best information at their disposal, we’d like to once again correct a handful of recent stories wrongly maligning PVC piping. 

Truthout buries the truth about drinking water

Written by a self-described “fact-checker,” Truthout’s coverage of the pipe-replacement project was mostly free of facts, alleging that “as many as 50 different chemicals [are] released into drinking water by PVC pipes, including hormone-disrupting organotin compounds and, potentially, phthalates.”

This is highly misleading. Contaminants in drinking water, regardless of the pipe material that transport the water, are tightly regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The agency’s drinking water regulations, authorized by Congress in 1974, are “legally enforceable primary standards” that “protect public health by limiting the levels of contaminants in drinking water.” [our emphasis].  

Phthalates, as we have explained previously, are additive plasticizers, chemicals used to manufacture flexible PVC products. Water pipes by contrast are rigid and engineered to withstand harsh environmental conditions for more than a century. Phthalates are not utilized in the production of plastic water pipe.

Truthout did correctly report two facts: PVC pipe is widely used in the US, and its popularity is only set to increase:

“Bluefield Research, a market research company focused on water, predicts that 80 percent of domestic water pipes will be made of plastic by 2030. Westlake Corporation, an international petrochemical manufacturer, plans to begin building a $134 million expansion to its PVC pipe plant in Wichita Falls, Texas, by the end of this year.”

Not-so-volatile PVC

Colorado Politics published an equally flawed op-ed on October 8 declaring that the city of Denver relies on water pipes “made from volatile chemicals.” This is factual but not truthful information. PVC pipes are made from vinyl chloride, a chemical that readily vaporizes (the definition of “volatility”). However, finished PVC products contain essentially no vinyl chloride, and PVC itself is inert, meaning it doesn’t react chemically with other substances. 

The public is simply not exposed to harmful levels of vinyl chloride or any other chemical through PVC water pipe. This includes benzene, a compound emitted by burning trees during wildfires that can enter damaged water lines. Colorado Politics insisted that benzene results from melted PVC pipe, but as experts have known for years, it “cannot be produced from PVC combustion in an open-air fire.”

Conclusion

PVC pipes deliver safe, clean drinking water to millions of Americans every single day. Why anyone would want to disparage a material that fulfills such an important public health function is beyond us. But spreading misinformation about PVC is unacceptable, and as long as misleading stories keep hitting the headlines, we’ll keep calling them out.

Desperate Times for Iron-Pipe Force Desperate Measures from DIPRA

One of the best books ever written, The Great Gatsby, tells the story of two men seeking affection from the same woman. Gatsby, the protagonist, relies on his own authentic attributes to express his love for her. Tom, the antagonist – realizing he is out-matched and unable to compete – engages in an underhanded campaign to try and disparage Gatsby’s credibility. 

Parallels from that storyline are ever-relevant today in the context of the iron pipe industry’s recent attacks on PVC pipe. As city managers show their affection for PVC pipe over ductile iron pipe in replacing their aging iron water systems, in an act of sad desperation, the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association (DIPRA) has resorted to slinging mud at PVC instead of defending the merits of its own pipe material.      

With their backs against the wall, DIPRA in recent months published an op-ed in the Washington Times (WT), a newsletter blog, an ad in a trade publication and a sponsored op-ed, all casting aspersions on the safety and reliability of plastic piping. All deceive the public with long-refuted falsehoods about vinyl chloride, the chemical used to manufacture PVC. DIPRA irresponsibly distorts the public’s understanding of the important roles vinyl and PVC products play in modern life. 

Let’s take a closer look at DIPRA’s claims. 

Fibbing about PVC pipe

As we’ve noted on many occasions, PVC pipe has: a service life of more than a century; a failure rate lower than any other common piping material–ductile iron included, according to a recent study by Utah State University–and an impressively small carbon footprint. 

City managers are choosing PVC pipe over ductile iron pipe due to PVC pipe’s safety and reliability, and DIPRA doesn’t like it. The evidence is freely available to anyone who wants to see it:

“Among the utilities participating in the survey, PVC is the most used pipeline material, at 116,345 miles, according to the report. Other commonly used materials include ductile iron (108,670 miles), cast iron (90,657), asbestos cement (42,365), and steel (11,358).  Among these pipe materials, PVC was found to have the lowest annual failure rate, at 2.9 breaks per 100 miles, according to the report. 

… Corrosive soils appear to play a key role in contributing to failures in ductile iron pipe. ‘Analysis of soil corrosivity shows that ductile iron pipe in highly corrosive soil has over six times the break rate of ductile iron in low corrosive soil,’ the report states.”

In the WT piece, DIPRA asserts that plastic pipes are “fragile, with a high risk of failure and a short service life, and they cost more over the life-cycle of a project.” The evidence provided in support of these charges? None whatsoever. Readers were apparently supposed to take the claims of the iron-pipe lobby at face value. 

But that’s not how science works. “Trust us” doesn’t make it true. Claims should be based on verifiable evidence. That’s why municipalities around the US are ignoring DIPRA’s empty claims and increasingly turning to PVC to deliver safe, clean drinking water to their residents. Because upgraded PVC piping “will enhance our water distribution capabilities,” as one mayor in Texas put it. She’s not alone either: in the last two years, the US has invested some $55 billion in water delivery and wastewater infrastructure—most of which is PVC.

Bottom line: the material works, and everybody knows it.

More vinyl chloride myths

In a newsletter published the same week, and in a recent ad, DIPRA targets vinyl chloride with the same sort of deceptive claims. Yet another piece of DIPRA-sponsored content published on September 16 by Civil Engineering Source was equally misleading.

The newsletter article alleges that vinyl chloride can cause cancer in humans – but what it hides is that the last case of cancer linked to vinyl chloride exposure was diagnosed in 1974— that is, 50 years ago. 

These rare liver cancers occurred only in industrial workers exposed to very high levels of the chemical for extended periods of time. A combination of innovative safety measures implemented by industry and strict regulations have virtually eliminated this risk for workers, as the CDC explains. And of course, the EPA continues to regulate vinyl chloride emissions with stringent standards that ensure public safety.

The September 16 article cites an EPA fact sheet noting that “Drinking water may contain low levels of vinyl chloride released from contact with PVC pipes.” The implication DIPRA would like readers to draw is that these levels are potentially harmful, but that’s simply not true. In fact, independent auditors test PVC pipe materials in the facilities where they are produced to ensure they do not contain elevated levels of vinyl chloride. According to NSF International, which performs the inspections:

“All PVC pipe, fittings and materials are tested at least twice per year for residual vinyl chloride. Samples are selected randomly by NSF auditors during unannounced inspections of each production facility. Levels of [residual vinyl chloride] must pass the toxicology evaluation.”

All of this points to a clear conclusion: PVC pipes simply do not pose a risk to consumers. 

Disinformation unacceptable

Competition in any industry is important. It incentivizes companies to constantly innovate and better serve customers. But deceiving the public about a competitor’s products to gain a leg up? That’s unacceptable.

Learn Chemistry From Chemists, Not Activists: EDF’s ‘Cumulative Exposure’ Gambit

Every chemical the public is exposed to is thoroughly tested and carefully regulated to ensure it doesn’t pose a risk to public health. Whether it’s a food ingredient, industrial chemical or a weedkiller used in home gardens, the manufacturer is obligated to demonstrate its safety to federal officials. 

Environmental activists recognize this basic fact as a serious threat to their anti-chemical scare campaigns and concoct increasingly strained excuses to explain why exposure to low-risk chemicals is actually very dangerous. Their favorite sleight of hand in recent years has been what we call the “cumulative exposures gambit.”

The idea is that exposure to multiple chemicals can be dangerous, even if each one has been declared safe as used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It’s a highly misleading claim. Let’s use this recent blog post from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) to illustrate why. EDF’s key assertion is that:

“Communities near industrial facilities are often exposed to multiple chemicals that cause the same health effects. Evaluating the health risk of these chemicals individually, as currently done by [the EPA], often underestimates the true risks communities face.”

This is false for several important reasons.The first problem is that EDF wrongly assumes (rather than demonstrates) that some individual chemicals “cause the same health effects,” and therefore deceptively concludes that combining them is even more dangerous. 

Ignoring facts about vinyl chloride

For instance, the activist group asserts that vinyl chloride – a chemical used to manufacture PVC plastic – is carcinogenic, so exposure to it and “other carcinogenic chemicals” amplifies someone’s risk of cancer. But as we have explained too many times to count, the public is exposed to so little vinyl chloride that it can’t possibly pose a cancer risk.

 Even inside PVC manufacturing facilities – where workplace exposure to vinyl chloride would arguably be the highest of anywhere on the planet – cancers with a unique association to the chemical are nonexistent today.

If the activists at EDF believe that vinyl chloride contributes to some cumulative risk, they have an obligation to explain why. Speculations and assertions just aren’t good enough.

Second, the EPA has had an extensive framework in place to examine the impact of cumulative chemical exposures for many years. This approach “includes developing profiles of exposure, considering interactions (if any) among stressors, and predicting risks to the population or populations assessed,” the agency notes in a 130-page report published over two decades ago. EDF’s complaints are badly out of date in 2024.  

Finally, the EPA regulates chemicals under multiple federal laws.These regulations provide the agency with a wide variety of tools to protect public health by setting strict limits on chemical contaminants in drinking water, ambient air and commercially available products. Put simply, the EPA can and does limit the public’s cumulative exposure to chemicals.

Conclusion

EDF and other activist NGOs have misapplied a valid concept to advance their ideological goal of banning chemicals with important public health and industrial applications. Exposure to multiple substances can be dangerous.That’s why it’s usually a bad idea to mix cleaning products, for example, and why the EPA has issued chemical compatibility guidelines. But we only know about the potential harm of mixing different substances because experts have thoroughly tested these chemistries to see how they interact with each other. 

As usual, the lesson for interested members of the public is simple: learn science from scientists; ignore activists who exist only to scare you.