Dr. Heather Stapleton’s recent study on vinyl flooring uses flawed methodology to draw a host of misleading conclusions. Those in the press who reflexively publicize her findings -- and fail to include important facts and context to help the public decide whether her claims are scientifically reliable -- do a disservice to readers everywhere.
Collaboration with Anti-Vinyl Organizations
Dr. Stapleton is not an independent authority on this issue. She has collaborated with the Environmental Working Group (EWG) -- a group that has been ideologically opposed to vinyl flooring for years. EWG has called vinyl flooring “the worst flooring choice,” and the group’s distortions about vinyl material have been publicly corrected in the past.
What’s more, Dr. Stapleton’s laboratory, The Stapleton Lab, is housed within Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment -- which partners with other organizations that have engaged in decades-long campaigns to deceive the public about vinyl. Specifically, it runs an affiliated internship program with Greenpeace, which actively campaigns against PVC material. Other internship partners include EWG and Earthjustice, another staunch opponent of the PVC industry.
Combined, these relationships raise serious questions with respect to Dr. Stapleton’s independence on this important subject.
Problems With Dr. Stapleton’s Study
Her research focuses on a specific phthalate called benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), which Dr. Stapleton claims causes health issues in children exposed to vinyl flooring in their homes. Here’s the problem: very little vinyl flooring sold in the United States today contains BBP.
What’s more, her research relies on observational data by individuals who are not trained experts in distinguishing different flooring material types to determine whether, or how much, vinyl flooring was present in the homes of test subjects. And as any respected researcher knows, survey data is widely considered to be an unreliable data source. Notably, it is impossible for Dr. Stapleton to confirm that the vinyl flooring in the homes of the subjects in her study even contained BBP -- and verifying that is essential to the study’s overall credibility. And Dr. Stapleton’s study failed to consider that the presence of BBP could come from a number of sources. After all, a study is only as good as its methodology.
She also fails to note that no credible science exists anywhere claiming a connection between phthalate exposure and impacts to human health.
Even more egregious, Dr. Stapleton’s own study shows that the levels of BBP that the children were exposed to were far too low to be of concern. According to her paper, even the greatest possible exposures were at least 25 times below the safe level as determined by the U.S. EPA. In other words, none of the children profiled in this study were in danger of exposure-related health concerns. There is simply no evidence in this study that children living in homes with vinyl flooring are at any greater risk than children living in homes with no vinyl flooring.
Alarmist findings may be attractive for media outlets to cover. But when the press blindly cover studies that rely on unscientific methods -- and fail to question their conclusions or provide important context regarding the author’s independence or credibility -- the public loses. Readers can only make informed judgments when they have access to all of the facts.
And a flawed study by an agenda-driven researcher does not change what years of credible science and real world use has proven -- vinyl flooring remains one of the safest, most reliable products on the market today.