At some point you may have come across a so-called activist “red list.” The idea behind these fear pieces is pretty simple: condense sensational and unsupported science on products people use every day, present it as credible research to the public, reject the corpus of sound research that disputes their desired narrative on thin pretenses, and incite unnecessary alarm by claiming the products should be avoided at all costs.
“Red lists” are grossly misleading. They make it hard for consumers to make informed choices. “Red lists” – sometimes called ‘restricted substance lists’ – lump together materials with drastically different risk profiles, and treat them exactly the same. In this one, they place the same amount of importance on avoiding phthalates as lead. Here’s the problem: lead has well known, well documented, and scientifically proven health risks and virtually any exposure at all is dangerous; phthalates, on the other hand, have been safely used for more than 50 years and there is no consensus among researchers and scientists that real world exposure to phthalates poses any human health risks. Despite these significant differences, this “red list” treats both materials the same.
Often citing the “precautionary principle”, the activist organizations that push “red lists” assume consumers aren’t sophisticated or educated enough to understand these distinctions, so they obfuscate and act as though the listed substances or materials should all be avoided.
Another problem with “red lists” is that they often advise consumers against products that are perfectly safe for their intended use. They don’t take into consideration the issues of real world exposure and risk levels. Phthalates are applicable here as well. The EPA has established a reference dose for safe exposure to various phthalates used for making products from cables to cosmetics. All of the exposure from these phthalates that a person is likely to experience in real-world scenarios is well below that safe level. Yet, the red-listers still say that you should avoid them altogether. Either the activists think you’re incapable of understanding the science, or else they’re pushing their own agenda by deliberately confusing the issue.
Which brings us to the central problem with “red lists.” They’re used by agenda-driven activists to carry out crusades against materials they deem unsafe based on misleading generalizations and oversimplified views of hazards to shape the purchasing habits of consumers. These organizations cite each other to create a guise of credibility despite failing to warn consumers about legitimately dangerous materials -- like crystalline silica -- while they profit from attacking and smearing safe materials used to produce rigid and flexible vinyl products.
Although “red lists,” purport to be about a benefit to consumers, ultimately, they end up hurting consumers and the planet far more than they help. Ironically, the precautionary principle -- on which these lists claim to be based -- would suggest that these lists should not be trusted unless they are fully vetted and validated to provide benefit across the major indicators of human and climate health.