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.” The last case of the disease attributed to vinyl chloride was diagnosed five decades ago. 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.