More DIPRA PVC Attack Ads Falsely Framed as “Public Education”

DIPRA must have had a lot of “use-it-or-lose-it” money left in its 2025 USA Today ad budget, judging by the flurry of anti-PVC pipe placements that appeared on New Year’s Eve – including this one, this one, and this one. Despite DIPRA’s attempt to differentiate each one with state-specific headlines, the body copy is nearly identical word for word. We can do better, DIPRA.

What really caught our attention was DIPRA’s embarrassing lack of originality. One of the New Year’s Eve ads, dressed up as an essay meant to “educate” the public, is the exact same piece DIPRA ran on August 7, 2025 – right down to the graphic. We challenged DIPRA on that ad when it ran last year and exposed numerous flaws, but it appears DIPRA would rather continue misleading USA Today readers about PVC pipe than inform them of the facts.

Here’s what truly made us chuckle: These New Year’s Eve ads focus almost exclusively on attacking PVC pipe rather than promoting the merits of ductile iron. Just one sentence of DIPRA’s roughly 500-word paid argument addresses the benefits of its own product. The rest is mudslinging – replete with falsehoods and inaccurate claims about PVC pipe.

Flattery aside, this raises an important question: Why would DIPRA spend so much money distorting the facts about PVC pipe?

• Could it be because DIPRA feels threatened, knowing PVC pipe is one of the most widely chosen materials by city managers nationwide when replacing deteriorating iron pipe?

• Is it fear that more city managers understand ductile iron pipe simply doesn’t offer the strength, longevity, or durability of PVC?

• Perhaps DIPRA knows it can’t compete with the substantial cost savings PVC pipe delivers to taxpayers year after year?

• Or maybe DIPRA believes that stoking unfounded fears about PVC safety will distract from scrutiny of iron pipe – including research from the National Academy of Sciences suggesting iron pipe can promote the colonization of Legionella, the bacteria responsible for Legionnaires’ disease?

The facts about PVC pipe are straightforward:

• PVC pipes are subject to rigorous regulatory oversight to ensure their safety for drinking water use.

•  The U.S. EPA regulates drinking water quality, and PVC pipes must meet standards established by NSF and ANSI, including NSF/ANSI Standard 61.

• While DIPRA notes that the EPA is currently reviewing vinyl chloride, its ads omit a critical fact: Research shows PVC pipes do not release harmful levels of vinyl chloride into drinking water. Translation: They pose no public health risk.

•  DIPRA’s attempts to alarm readers with baseless claims about environmental stress on PVC pipe ignore a fundamental characteristic of the material itself – PVC is engineered to resist corrosion and degradation. That’s why it’s widely used in areas with variable environmental conditions. There is no credible evidence showing that such stress leads to detectable vinyl chloride leaching from pipes certified under NSF/ANSI 61.

Readers deserve accurate information about the materials best suited to improve our nation’s infrastructure. Instead, DIPRA continues to spread propaganda disguised as public service messaging to disparage a primary competitor.

Green isn’t a good color on you, DIPRA. These ads reek of desperation – and they won’t stop city managers across the country from recognizing PVC pipe as the safe, affordable, and reliable choice for municipalities everywhere.

PVC Christmas Trees Are (Still) Perfectly Safe

If you're like most people, you're preparing to celebrate the holidays with your family: sharing a delicious meal, watching "A Christmas Story" on repeat and opening gifts with your children. But there's another annual tradition anti-PVC activists and their allies in the press love to celebrate this time each and every year — spreading unnecessary holiday fear over artificial Christmas trees.

Earlier this month, Family Handyman recycled the greatest hits of anti-PVC activism in this story, erroneously alleging that synthetic trees could contribute to a wide variety of health maladies, despite no evidence to back it up. Let's examine the article's assertions with the clarity and precision Family Handyman should have employed itself.

No evidence, anywhere

First, the notion that PVC is "poison" is entirely ridiculous. The article cites no supporting data to justify this assertion, because there is no evidence to cite. As we have explained time and again, PVC itself is inert, meaning it doesn’t react chemically with other substances. Under normal operating conditions—sitting in the corner of your living room—synthetic Christmas trees do not pose a health risk from harmful chemical exposure.

News outlets, Family Handyman included, love to point out that very high doses of vinyl chloride, a chemical used to manufacture PVC, were once linked to a rare liver cancer in industrial workers (not the general public). What they're less keen to explain is that this disease has been "virtually eliminated," per the CDC. A basic fact-check would have confirmed this critical safety detail.

Speaking of fact-checking, the article's warning that synthetic trees off-gas harmful levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is total speculation. Regulators have repeatedly cleared PVC for consumer and industrial use, for example in medical devices and food packaging. If there were genuine dangers, we'd see epidemiological data linking PVC trees to illnesses. Instead, these claims from the media often stem from cherry-picked lab tests under extreme conditions—or they're just made up.

Biased sources

The lack of factual information in the story may stem from one of its key sources, Mike Schade from Toxic-Free Future, an activist group we've corrected multiple times. Schade is presented as an authority, but he's far from an impartial expert. His organization campaigns against plastics broadly, and their claims about plastic are often entirely false or misleading. Any NGO or individual with such a spotty track record does not deserve the "expert" title Family Handyman bestowed on Schade.

No balance

Most troubling, however, is the article's bias in excluding a balanced perspective. Family Handyman solicited (and received) a statement from the Vinyl Institute, the industry's leading voice on safety and sustainability, but omitted it entirely from its article. This omission slants the narrative, misleading readers by presenting only one side. Here's the full statement provided by the Vinyl Institute. Note that the facts below would have exposed the critical flaws in Family Handyman's coverage:

"Vinyl products are manufactured to meet rigorous U.S. safety and environmental standards, delivering exceptional durability that is designed for long-term use. In the United States, the vinyl industry has been working to increase adoption of the +Vantage Vinyl sustainability program, the world’s first and only sustainability program that addresses an entire industry. Thirty companies - including the leading vinyl compound suppliers - bearing the +Vantage Vinyl-verified mark signal to the world that they meet important environmental, health, and social criteria. One of the mandatory criteria is that lead is not used as an added ingredient in vinyl components.

Furthermore, vinyl is relied on by hospitals because it can withstand the harsh cleaning chemicals that are used to keep surfaces safe for patients, staff and visitors alike. Any issues involving mildew buildup or mold stem from storage conditions, not the vinyl itself. Vinyl is a safe and responsible choice for homes, and simple care will keep these products clean and reliable for years to come."

We encounter reporters all the time who defy their journalistic responsibilities by publishing stories without contacting the vinyl industry for comment. But when a reporter requests a statement — and throws it directly in the trash bin? That's something that will put you straight on our naughty list.

If you're among the 83 percent of Americans who have switched to an artificial Christmas tree, know that you made a safe, eco-friendly choice that will last for decades. So hear hear! Enjoy your artificial tree, without worry or fear. And spend this special time of year, with those you hold dear — and celebrate with some Christmas cheer!

Happy Holidays from all of us at Vinyl Verified!

WAMC Laziness: Plagiarizing Beyond Plastics While Ignoring New York's Wallet Woes

In the world of public radio, where "independent" journalism prides itself on digging deep, WAMC Northeast Public Radio just served up a masterclass in copy-paste ethics—or lack thereof. On September 15, they published an article on a rally for New York's Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act (PRRIA), but the "BACKGROUND" section? Entirely lifted, word for word, from a Beyond Plastics press release, without attribution. Recall that Beyond Plastics is the activist outfit trying to force the bill through the legislature. We've caught them spreading misinformation about PVC many times.

The article, as written, reads like an advertorial for the bill. "The Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act (S1464 Harckham/A1749 Glick) will transform the way our goods are packaged," it states. "It will dramatically reduce waste and ease the burden on taxpayers by making companies, not taxpayers and consumers, cover the cost of managing packaging. The bill will..." And on it goes, bullet points and all, mirroring Beyond Plastics' press release from September 13, 2025 and its April 2025 economic report.

For context, PRRIA is an onerous extended producer responsibility bill aimed at curbing New York's use of plastic packaging. Championed by Assemblymember Deborah Glick and Senator Pete Harckham, it mandates a 30% cut in plastic packaging over 12 years, a 75% recycling rate for all packaging by 2052, restricts a wide variety of chemicals used to make packaging, and slaps fees on producers to fund local recycling.

WAMC's plagiarism constitutes a glaring ethics breach. That would be bad enough on its own, but it’s especially offensive given how unpopular the PRRIA is—the bill failed to pass twice—and the exorbitant penalties it imposes on New Yorkers.

A just-updated York University study warns of unrealistic savings claims and real economic hits, including more than $1.2 billion in costs to local industry, a significant increase from the $500 million originally estimated. However, the study adds that this hefty sum won't be paid by industry alone. "Producers, seeking to maintain profitability and competitiveness, will transfer a significant portion of these costs to consumers by raising prices on packaged goods, food products, household items, and electronics," the researchers note (p 19).

The media's job is to report critical facts like the ones outlined above to the public so they understand how the PRRIA would impact their living standards. Did WAMC neglect its objectivity obligations because of a cozy relationship with Beyond Plastics Executive Director Judith Enck, who regularly appears on WAMC's "The Roundtable" podcast series? Regardless, WAMC—funded by listeners expecting rigor—owes an apology, a correction, and a pledge to do more than literally copying activist talking points. New Yorkers deserve coverage that weighs those claims against economic realities—not recycled press releases.

Fact-Checking DIPRA’s Latest Attack On PVC Pipe

Across the US, a growing number of communities are choosing PVC pipe to deliver safe, clean drinking water to their residents. One water distribution supervisor in Ohio nicely captured the enthusiasm driving this trend when asked about his city’s decision to replace its failing iron water infrastructure:

 "Switching to PVC or plastic piping, that's always the way to go." 

As America’s demand for PVC continues to surge, iron pipe manufacturers have initiated a media campaign to reverse this plastic pipe boom—not by promoting the benefits of their own material but by attacking PVC under false pretenses. This piece of sponsored content placed in USA Today by the Ductile Iron Pipe Association (DIPRA) is a textbook example: North TX communities revisit water pipes as EPA reviews vinyl chloride.

In the story, DIPRA – a group we’ve fact-checked at least a dozen times so far – once again raises unsubstantiated concern about PVC pipe, implying that it exposes the public to unsafe levels of a chemical called vinyl chloride. 

The problem? DIPRA’s narrative overlooks the reality that PVC water pipes are tightly regulated, rigorously tested, and simply do not pose a risk to public health—making them a safe and reliable choice for drinking water systems.

PVC pipe regulation: just the facts

First, PVC water pipes are subject to stringent regulations that ensure their safety. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates drinking water quality, and PVC pipes must comply with standards set by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), specifically NSF/ANSI 61. This standard certifies that materials used in drinking water systems do not leach harmful substances, including vinyl chloride, at levels exceeding extremely conservative safety thresholds. 

DIPRA notes that the EPA is currently reviewing vinyl chloride, but its article overlooks an essential detail: the agency’s ongoing assessment has already concluded that “PVC products, such as pipes … often contain low concentrations of residual vinyl chloride monomer.” 

The reason these concentrations are so low is simple. Although vinyl chloride is used to make PVC pipe, the manufacturing process eliminates almost all of the chemical from the finished product. Studies confirm that properly manufactured PVC pipes do not release detectable levels of vinyl chloride into water—ensuring no public health risk.

PVC pipe’s unmatched durability

DIPRA also suggests that environmental conditions—for example, heat, drought and soil moisture shifts—could cause PVC pipes to crack and leach chemicals. This claim lacks specific evidence and ignores another critical point: PVC is engineered to be corrosion resistant, making it an ideal choice for regions where climate variability is a concern. Bottom line: there is no quality evidence linking environmental stressors to significant vinyl chloride leaching from NSF/ANSI 61-certified pipes.

Conclusion

Despite DIPRA’s inaccurate claims about vinyl chloride, the truth of the matter is this: PVC is the most reliable material on the market when it comes to water infrastructure. Communities across the U.S. can confidently choose PVC pipes, knowing they are backed by science, stringent safety standards, and a track record of performance going back many decades.

Bell-Bottom’ed Pittsburgh Union Progress Stuck in 1974 Time Capsule On Vinyl Chloride

When it comes to chemical safety, a majority of reporters would rather scare the public than provide accurate information. This is a phenomenon we’ve documented time and again, and earlier this month we were confronted by yet another example of a news outlet falling far short of established standards for ethical journalism.

In a July 13 article for the Pittsburgh Union Progress, “Greed and deceit define the history of vinyl chloride,” reporter Steve Mellon presented a one-sided narrative that excluded critical details about the chemical’s safety profile. By providing a truncated history of vinyl chloride’s use and oversight, the article badly distorted the current reality of a tightly regulated substance and the vinyl industry’s proactive safety record. 

Regulatory myths and facts

First, Mellon implies that vinyl chloride (VCM) poses an ongoing risk because its regulatory future “remains uncertain.” That’s possibly the most inaccurate statement we’ve ever read about the chemical — quite a feat when you consider all the spurious media coverage we’ve confronted over the years. The truth is that vinyl chloride, a key component of PVC plastic, is thoroughly regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under multiple frameworks. 

The EPA sets strict emission standards for vinyl chloride, severely limiting releases from manufacturing facilities to protect both workers and nearby communities. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards further cap workplace exposure at 1 part per million (ppm) over an 8-hour period, with a 5 ppm ceiling for short-term exposure. 

These regulations, informed by decades of research, have drastically reduced risks since the 1970s, when vinyl chloride’s link to a rare liver cancer (angiosarcoma) was first identified in some industrial workers. Indeed, both the CDC and the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have observed that the risk of angiosarcoma from VCM exposure has been all but “completely eliminated.” This fact was notably missing in Melon’s article.

Mellon’s failure to discuss, or even acknowledge, these essential historical points misleads his audience. Surely Pittsburgh Union Progress readers are entitled to all the facts about vinyl chloride from a story marketed as “exploring the history of vinyl chloride.”

Industry innovation saved lives

Second, the vinyl industry has been a leader in safety innovations that protect workers from chemical exposure. The industry has implemented engineering controls, such as closed-loop systems for vinyl chloride production and improved ventilation in factories. These measures reduced workplace exposure levels by orders of magnitude, well below OSHA’s current limits. 

Mellon’s claim of “greed and deceit” ignores this proactive response, falsely suggesting that the industry has been indifferent to worker safety. In reality, the industry’s exemplary safety record was praised by the Biden Administration, which in 2022 declared that “... the vinyl industry takes safety and health seriously.” 

The other side of the story

Finally, the Union Progress article betrays its bias by failing to consult industry sources, resulting in a distorted narrative. Balanced journalism requires engaging all stakeholders, including the vinyl industry, which could have provided data on safety and regulatory compliance. By relying solely on out-of-context anecdotes and activist perspectives, Mellon cherry-picks information to irresponsibly paint vinyl chloride as an unchecked menace. 

Such a deceptive claim would make for a good movie script, but it doesn’t help the public understand that vinyl chloride is safe for its intended use – both to consumers and those who work in the facilities that produce it. 

Like so many reporters before him, Mellon omits inconvenient facts and reveals a propensity for sensationalism while failing to fulfill his primary task as a journalist—telling the truth.

Toxic Free Paydays: Behind the Curtain of Anti-PVC Product Promotion

Toxic Free Choice says it’s “dedicated to helping consumers make the absolute safest and best decisions for their personal non-toxic journey.” A better description might read: We’re a business that scares readers with misguided assertions about perfectly safe products – and then promotes alternatives that could earn us a commission [Our words, not theirs].

We’ll explain … TFC recently published this blog post containing a screed of tired and misleading claims about PVC coolers. It starts this way:

This guide to non-toxic coolers is here to help you swap out conventional plastic options for safe, family-friendly coolers that keep your food cold without dangerous chemicals. 

The post quickly takes aim at PVC. “Keeping your drinks chilled shouldn’t come with a side of PVC,” it states. Citing “toxic materials to avoid completely,” the piece identifies PVC at the top of the list.

It then goes on to quote a row of anti-PVC claims by career “hysterians” who have been debunked, corrected, or refuted, over and over and over again. The blog irresponsibly suggests vinyl chloride is ever-present in PVC coolers (it’s not) and encourages readers to believe the industry isn’t regulated when it’s one of the most regulated industries in the nation.

And all throughout, the post cherry picks research studies that don’t hold up to scientific scrutiny to promote the view that people should avoid PVC coolers altogether.

It doesn’t stop there. After a litany of misstatements about PVC, the piece includes a long list of recommended PVC-free cooler brands, complete with reviews – and links where people can purchase each item. (Spoiler alert: One costs just under $800.00).

One might think TFC wrote this because they care deeply about the environment. But the real purpose of the TFC blog may be something else entirely – something readers could easily overlook: Making money.

A reference at the top of the piece, in small print, reads: “This post may contain affiliate links.” Scroll all the way down to the very bottom of the page, and this appears:

The Toxic Free Choice is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.

The word “affiliate” is a vague and often-used marketing term that, by design, is invoked to create an appearance of transparency without explaining what it actually means. Market research giant Gartner is a bit more direct in describing it: “Affiliate marketing is commission-based. Affiliates advertise a business’s products, and commission is paid to the affiliates based on leads or conversions delivered via their advertising.”

Translation: TFC potentially earns a fee every time web users click on a link that redirects them to a product TFC promotes.

The public has a right to know when groups like TFC – that posture as public health advocates – act as commission-based advertisers of product lines they promote. Readers deserve to have the details of these financial arrangements clearly spelled out, so they can decide for themselves if the content they’re reading is sound – or just a sales job.

Few know what the word “affiliate” even means – but most know when they’re being pitched to buy something. When a group like TFC writes a blog and attacks the integrity of a product category in the name of public safety – and then promotes a set of competing products that may earn them a commission – their claims lack credibility and deserve serious reader scrutiny.

Making matters worse, TFC isn’t a nonprofit organization. It’s a business: A “Susty Trade LLC company,” where it describes itself as a “media brand” based in Chicago, IL:

We see this all the time with agenda-driven sites that have a seemingly altruistic purpose in promoting alternative products in the spirit of public safety. In truth, many sites are profiting by scaring people about items that have been used safely for decades.

People trust PVC in coolers and in thousands of other consumer items because of the material’s safety, reliability, durability, and affordability. People don’t trust companies that prey – and profit – on people’s fears by distorting the facts.

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.