A recent article in Consumer Reports is riddled with misleading claims about the safety of PVC products. When we brought these errors to the attention of the editors at Consumer Reports, they corrected only the most egregious and indefensible mistake and ignored the rest. In the interest of transparency, it’s important that readers know there are a number of other inaccurate and misleading points in the outlet’s one-sided article -- points Consumer Reports declined to correct.
Mr. Loria, the author of this article, incorrectly suggests that phthalates used in PVC products are unsafe. The truth is that phthalates have been safely used in consumer and commercial products for more than 50 years. Rigorous risk assessments by government agencies in the U.S., Europe, Canada, and Australia have all concluded that phthalates present low-risks in their intended use. He irresponsible stokes unnecessary fear of perfectly safe products.
Mr. Loria also bases his story on a study that used contrived conditions with very little applicability to real-world use of plastic products. The study itself notes that “it is important to highlight that [the researchers’] aim was not to draw conclusions regarding the health impacts of plastics” [emphasis added].
But that is exactly what Mr. Loria does in his article. Even though he includes a caveat that plastic products “aren't necessarily harmful to human health,” he uses these flawed findings to advocate for the avoidance of plastics whenever possible. He also presents the findings of the study with very little qualification or discussion of their limitations. As a result, readers are misled to believe that the products they use every day are, in fact, harmful. And it doesn’t live up to the high standards of an organization that self-proclaims an adherence to “truth, transparency, and fairness in the marketplace.”
Quite the opposite. Mr. Loria ignored journalistic standards of fairness and sourcing by not seeking comments from anyone with a dissenting view. The result is a one-sided article that fails to provide readers with the facts and context they deserve. Had Mr. Loria contacted any organization with a view contrary to his preferred narrative, he would have been informed of his errors and given critical context on the issue to ensure that his readers were not misled.
We brought this oversight to the attention of Consumer Reports and provided them with the statement below. They elected not to print it and chose, instead, to deny their readers a balanced view of the issue. Here is the statement we asked them to include in the article:
Consumers have a right to the facts — and they indisputably show that PVC is a safe and reliable material. The study at the center of this article offers no evidence to support the claim that PVC or other plastic products pose any human health risk in normal use. Phthalates in flexible PVC have been safely used in consumer and commercial products for more than 50 years and rigorous risk assessments by government agencies in the US, Europe, Canada, and Australia have concluded that they present low-risks during intended use.
Sadly, this kind of one-sided and misleading treatment is all too common in reporting on PVC products. Publications like Consumer Reports should provide consumers with a complete picture regarding the products they use. The public deserves better than slanted coverage from outlets claiming to look out for their best interest. That’s why we will continue to hold those reporters and outlets accountable when they miss the mark on PVC.