The Guardian was once recognized as an excellent source of science news. In recent years, though, the UK-based paper has earned the ire of independent fact-checkers for publishing heavily biased stories and misinforming readers about critical public health issues.
Unfortunately, that downward spiral continued earlier this month when The Guardian published an agenda-driven story about the health effects of microplastics. Specifically, the story featured – and failed to fact check – claims by Martin Wagner, a Norwegian academic, about phthalates that are especially dubious.
Wagner asserted that phthalates are a “chemical of concern” and should be regulated and labeled as a result. “Policymakers should force manufacturers to be transparent about what chemicals are in their products,” he reportedly told the outlet.
All three claims are patently false. Here’s why.
What Are Phthalates, and What Do They Do?
As we have noted previously, phthalates are a family of chemicals primarily used as “plasticizers” to increase the flexibility, performance and durability of plastics. They are commonly found in a wide range of consumer goods, medical devices and some types of food packaging and food processing equipment.
Over the past five decades, numerous studies have examined the alleged health effects associated with phthalates. Several large-scale studies have failed to find any evidence of harm due to real-world phthalate exposure. Regulators at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and independent experts have arrived at this conclusion as well. The Guardian excluded these key details from its reporting.
Facts about FDA regulation
The Guardian’s other key deception was the implication that phthalates are unregulated, but nothing could be further from the truth. In the U.S., operating under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, FDA officials determine which phthalates are allowed in the consumer products they oversee, and they can pull any product off the market that they determine poses a risk to public health.
The agency also evaluates the safety of phthalates used in food contact materials, medical devices, and other consumer products, taking into account factors such as exposure levels, toxicity data, and potential health effects. As we have explained to the press on many occasions, the agency has twice-rejected multiple activist demands driven by “citizen petitions” that sought a blanket ban on all FDA-authorized phthalates from food-contact, including food packaging. After exhaustive review, today four essential phthalates remain FDA-authorized for food contact.
Demanding product labels is a common tactic activists use to stir up public concern about chemical safety, though this too misunderstands the purpose of labeling. Some labels, such as those that contain nutrition and allergy information, are helpful because they provide useful health information and alert people to potential life-saving information. But putting a warning label on products that may contain trace amounts of phthalates would actually mislead people into thinking that phthalates pose a risk when they don’t.
Conclusion
Speaking of warnings, “buyer beware” is a lesson most consumers take to heart before they make a purchase, the goal being to avoid defective products and untrustworthy sellers. We suggest that Guardian subscribers receive a similar message: “reader beware,” as this once-respected outlet has become an untrustworthy source of defective science.