TREACHEROUS, EXCESSIVE, NIT-PICKY, DECEITFUL, RECKLESS (TENDR)

Backpacks, lunchboxes, welcome mats, sofas, flooring, mattresses, and garden hoses – just some of the products the government would need to approve before they could be sold to consumers. This inevitably onerous process would push every item through an FDA-like gauntlet before hitting the shelves. This may seem Orwellian in nature, but it’s the reality that Project TENDR wants for America.

Project TENDR, an acronym for Targeting Environmental Neuro-Developmental Risks, says we need to “overhaul” how chemicals are reviewed, calling on regulators to “follow scientific guidance” and for businesses to eliminate products they don’t approve of. What types of products? Everything from high chairs to fragrant personal care products to fireplaces would be up for inspection.

The folks at TENDR even list “cooking fumes from stoves and grills” in the same category as tobacco smoke – since “all contain hazardous air pollutants.” The definition of what would be considered “safe” would be so absurdly restrictive that fewer and fewer products would be brought to market – including safe products that can bring added conveniences and comfort to our everyday lives.

Why did Project TENDR come together? For a noble cause: to protect children. But asking – expecting – the country to be consumers of only natural or organic materials is not only overbearing, but costly and unrealistic.  Today, people are living longer, healthier lives – thanks in large measure to many innovative materials used to make a host of safe products that have been studied extensively and available in the marketplace for decades.

A look at TENDR’s participant list may explain its radical positions. It includes agenda-driven advocates known for their extreme bias – and fundraising-motivated campaigns. Representatives from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) – staunch ideological critics of the chemical industry – are proudly listed. 

Copying the playbook of fellow alarmists Jenny McCarthy and Dr. Oz, the Project couldn’t resist the ultimate way to scare parents – raising fear over Autism: “In a large Swedish population-based study the presence of PVC flooring in the parents’ bedroom, which is a known source of phthalate exposure, was associated with autism.” One study, based in Sweden, in the presence of PVC flooring (and numerous other household items and environmental factors) showed an association? How is that proof of anything?

We’ll take it a few steps further … Where is the science here? What controls were established to demonstrate study credibility? What was the study’s sample size, and can proper scientific conclusions be drawn from it? Was the study peer reviewed by objective researchers – or published in a reputable journal? And why haven’t these results been validated by any other studies?

Groups like TENDR often avoid these questions because the answers frequently contradict their world-view.  They expect us to head for the hills based on the questionable findings of one junk science study – the very definition of irresponsibility in its truest form.

TENDR promotes a number of health scares by a host of groups that have been “fundraising fear” for years.  These include, among others, the dangers of consuming non-organic foods, promoted by the elitists at The Environmental Working Group, a group with an extensive track record of deceiving consumers through the use of junk science – dating back as far as the 1990s. And NRDC, whose efforts to raise money and spread fear over its long-standing campaign against mercury and seafood are well documented.

Consider TENDR’s funders, too. One sponsor, the Passport Foundation, is a major supporter of NRDC – to the tune of $100,000 in 2015. Passport also gives to Sustainable Markets Foundation, which in turn supports Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families (SCHF) – an alarmist group with an entrenched record of unwavering opposition against the vinyl industry.  Passport gives to another project donor, John Merck Fund, another supporter of SCHF.

Of course, when TENDR launched, most reporters blindly promoted its point-of-view without ever questioning the impact of its policies, or the motives of the organizations that support its agenda. The New York Times, surprisingly, was one of the only outlets to reach out for a quote from those with opposing views – but even its coverage was still heavily weighted in favor of TENDR’s mission.  Across the board, journalists failed to balance their stories with an objective examination of the organization’s credibility, and the consequences of its policy positions.

Which is why we will continue to publicly confront TENDR’s dishonest statements – and hold reporters who cover it accountable to their own journalism standards – to enforce a more balanced conversation about this organization moving forward.

Something smells funny over at the Environmental Working Group

If you smell something, say something. That seems to be the new motto for the agenda-driven fundraising outfit Environmental Working Group (EWG). When they’re not busy launching fear-mongering publicity stunts or promoting their baseless “EWG Verified” seal of approval, they go where their nose takes them. Smell something? Then stay away…it must be toxic! Seems like a good enough reason to call on the EPA to investigate.

As part of their “20 Toxic Chemicals the EPA should act on now” release—timed to raise money around EPA’s upcoming announcement of top priority chemicals to review under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)—EWG lists vinyl chloride.

Why? Because some products that use vinyl chloride during production smell funny.

No, really. EWG warns that vinyl chloride is “a source of the distinctive ‘new car smell.’” They say the same of shower curtains. Do new cars and new shower curtains have a distinct smell? Of course. But is vinyl chloride the cause?

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) states, “vinyl chloride has a mild, sweet odor, which may become noticeable at 3,000 parts vinyl chloride per million parts (ppm) of air.” To put that in context, 3,000 ppm is an extremely high concentration –considering that regulations prevent worker exposure over 1 ppm.

So unless you have a better sense of smell than any other human being, it’s probably not vinyl. Not much vinyl is used in shower curtains, but you can be assured that the vinyl chloride was removed during the PVC manufacturing process before the vinyl was used to make a shower curtain.”

If the researchers over at EWG used more than their noses, this would have been easy to figure out. Instead, they call on EPA to undertake a risk assessment for vinyl chloride. But vinyl chloride was one of the first chemicals listed on the initial TSCA priority list in 1976, and has been studied for over 40 years. Why does it need a new risk assessment? There is ample research, the same research used to enact strict limitations for workplace exposure by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in 1974, and to set EPA limits on emissions and allowable levels of residual vinyl chloride in PVC resins. Along with decades of industry innovation, the safety of vinyl chloride has continuously improved.

EWG further warns that “The CDC has found it in about 60 percent of Americans tested.” But where does this statistic come from? No source is included in any of the release’s 28 footnotes. ATSDR, which is under the umbrella of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states in their ToxGuide that there is currently no evidence “regarding distribution of vinyl chloride in humans.” So where did the mysterious CDC number come from? If such data does exist, how were these individuals tested for exposure, and what was the source of the exposure? For instance, exposure can come from smoking cigarettes or cigars— which have nothing to do with PVC plastic. ATSDR says that only a blood test administered within a few hours after exposure can yield definitive results. Were such tests used?

We realize that groups like EWG want to add their two cents to policy debates so they can make two bucks in fundraising. But the actual scientists and policymakers who will determine the next ten high priority chemicals for testing should continue to rely on the 2014 TSCA Chemical Work Plan, as the EPA has planned on doing all along.

That sure beats the smell test.

Garden Variety Dishonesty by Ecology Center

Ahhh … summer is finally here.  And with it brings the welcome return of backyard barbeques, the familiar smell of fresh cut grass -- and the Ecology Center’s failed annual attempt to scare us about our (*wait for it*) PVC garden hoses.

Garden hoses.

Not one to let any possible fundraising opportunity go unexploited, this rather strange annual ritual by the Ecology Center’s PR team dates back to at least 2011.  And judging by the complete lack of interest in this year’s effort, even the Center’s most committed followers must be scratching their heads, wondering if this sad yearly publicity stunt has finally run its course.

The Center’s unequivocal mission in issuing this report is to spread fear about the health of consuming PVC hose water. But they discreetly acknowledge at the very end that their ratings “do not provide a measure of health risk or chemical exposure associated with any individual product …”

Which is the equivalent of saying, “We want to terrify you about your PVC hose because it helps our fundraising. But we’re not making any judgments here about the health of consuming hose water.”

Plastics Today’s Clare Goldsberry captured the Center’s duplicity best:

“It seems that nothing is safe from the plastic fear mongers. … I was lucky I had time to look into this story and question its merits. I was able to ignore the hysteria and consider the facts. 
… 
“This isn’t the first such report. In researching this so-called problem, I found that every summer—usually in June or the first part of July—Healthy Stuff releases its newest report on toxic garden hoses. This is to ensure you get your summer off to a fearful start. These reports go back as far as 2012, with one appearing on July 3, 2014, then updated on June 29, 2015.
… 
“Some were found to contain bromine (used in flame retardants just in case your hose catches on fire); antimony (a mineral found in batteries, glasses and pottery. Oops! Throw out the glassware and stoneware! The ancient Egyptians used it as eyeliner); and tin (don’t carry your water in a metal bucket—it might have tin in it). 
…
“The advice to ‘let the hose run until the water sitting in the hose is now in the ground’ is a waste of water. Avoid the sun by storing the hose in the shade—sorry, but here in the desert southwest when it’s 115 degrees that doesn’t even work in the shade! In fact, that’s a good deterrent to drinking from the water hose in Phoenix because you’ll burn your tongue off! Talk about health problems! You’ll never taste a steak from the barbeque again! Oh, I forgot, charcoal briquettes are also toxic.”

So. … What’s the next seasonal scare we can expect from the Ecology Center brain-trust?  Look for the group’s annual back-to-school disinformation assault on vinyl backpacks and related classroom products next month. Where they’ll earn a well-deserved “A” in Deception, and an “F” for Creativity.

 

 

 

 

ACECO Bill protects interests, not taxpayers

The citizens of Columbus and all of Ohio should demand clean, safe water, at an affordable price.  A bill pending in the Ohio legislature will help establish the framework to do just that, but opponents from the iron pipe industry and their surrogates are working feverishly to undercut the interests of the good citizens of The Buckeye State.

Such action is reminiscent of what has occurred over the years in other states, including Michigan, which contributed to the ongoing catastrophe in Flint.  Ohioans deserves better!

Delivering water, safely and affordably, from one location to another, is what PVC pipe does best.  

But carrying water – for the metallic pipe industry?  That’s something the American Council of Engineering Companies of Ohio (ACECO) might know a thing-or-two about.

ACECO’s Donald Mader penned this Columbus Dispatch essay blindly advancing the positions of the metallic pipe industry. In it, he attacks a pending bill in the Ohio legislature which would open markets and offer local officials access to materials beyond metallic pipe to address the region’s deteriorating water infrastructure.

Mr. Mader dismisses the bill on the grounds that the PVC pipe industry is trying to “force their product into the public works marketplace and gain a competitive advantage over other pipe producers.”   

But as Mr. Mader no doubt knows, the metallic pipe industry today has a 100% competitive advantage over other pipe materials available to local officials in Ohio. Groups, such as Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association (DIPRA), have fought aggressively to block states from accessing PVC pipe – despite its proven durability and affordability – to protect its members’ monopoly.

Leading readers to rightly question:  If Mr. Mader truly believes in competitive balance, why does he support the metallic pipe industry’s exclusionary foothold in Ohio, and oppose other cost-efficient materials, like PVC pipe, from entering the market – that would save taxpayers money?

Local officials would not be “forced” or “obligated” to use one material over another under the proposed legislation, as Mr. Mader deceives readers to believe.  The bill would simply grant materials other than metallic pipe a seat at the table, and level the playing field for other manufacturers.

And his misguided thesis assumes city engineers are somehow incapable of knowing what materials work best in certain applications. It suggests these engineers are unable to make the right choices themselves. It offends the intellect and expertise of these highly skilled and trained professionals, who are well informed on material specifications – and should be allowed to make their own decisions. 

Mr. Mader wants to keep us in the past – where innovations in durable, lead-free PVC pipe are denied the opportunity to help states confront their dilapidating, corroding, lead and metallic pipe water systems. 

But history isn’t on his side. Innovation often has a funny way of kicking antiquated technology to the curb. And as PVC pipe continues to expand its reach and deliver safe drinking water throughout America, corrosive metallic pipe may one day find itself encountering the same fate as the rotary phone and the horse drawn carriage.

Ohio deserves the right to select the best pipe for the application, and city water engineers should be allowed to consider all piping materials as they work to develop the most effective water infrastructure for their communities.

Richard Doyle
President & CEO
The Vinyl Insitute

 

 

Vallette Could Use a Fact Checker … (And a Proofreader)

We were entertained by Healthy Building Network’s Jim Vallette’s wordy response to our factual takedown of his original post riddled with errors about PVC.  So we’ll get straight to the point and highlight Vallette’s continued omissions and distortions:

Why won’t Vallette hold himself accountable to his own statements? Vallette’s 1,700+ word rebuttal conveniently sidesteps any reference to a glaring error we exposed in his original post.  He initially claimed a mercury cell chlorine plant in East Berlin, New Hampshire was used by the PVC industry.  But we pointed out the industry has never operated in the state.[1] And the site he references was dedicated for use in adjacent pulp and paper production, and had nothing to do with the PVC industry at all.  If Vallette is so concerned with accountability on these issues, why won’t he acknowledge that he misled his readers on this point?  Why won’t he be truthful and admit he made a mistake?

No agenda? Why, then, does Vallette irresponsibly fixate on PVC while ignoring the hundreds of uses of chlorine by the two plants he spotlights?  Water filtration is perhaps the most widely used application for the chlorine manufactured by the facilities noted in Vallette’s post.  There are hundreds of other uses, too.[2] Yet Vallette makes no mention of this – misleading unwitting readers to mistakenly believe the PVC industry is somehow a primary contributor of mercury pollution.  

Vallette cites decades-old examples to convey a dishonest impression about our modern-day industry. Vallette desperately tries to blame the PVC industry for the events at Cato Ridge, a mercury recovery facility in South Africa that closed in 1998.  But this contradicts an earlier essay Vallette penned about this very plant, where he made no mention of PVC as the cause of any pollution there.[3] Yet his most recent response now conveys the misguided notion that the PVC industry somehow bears primary responsibility for the events there, avoiding any reference to the countless other companies around the world that utilized this facility. His evidence? Small shipments of mercury and vinyl chloride waste sent by one company, prior to 1998, for treatment at the South Africa plant.  A company which closed its doors in 2002, and whose current owners no longer use mercury cell technology in their operations.  So how, exactly, does this prove Vallette’s thesis that the PVC industry is responsible for present-day mercury pollution?  It doesn’t. Vallette’s selective, cherry-picked examples from decades ago only mislead the public. And they intentionally ignore the tremendous strides our industry has undertaken to modernize operations and phase out the use of mercury cell technology in the U.S.

There is no vinyl chloride production at / near either of the two chlorine plants that use mercury cell technology featured by Vallette. Over the past 20 years, U.S. vinyl chloride producers reconfigured their operations to rely on chlorine either manufactured on-site or from adjacent / nearby facilities.  Chlorine produced from these plants is intended to supply all the chlorine requirements for the manufacture of vinyl chloride and its precursors used in the production of PVC resins.  Regional chlorine plants supply regional markets, as is the case with Axiall’s Natrium, WV and ASHTA’s Ashtabula, OH facilities featured in Vallette’s posts. There is no vinyl chloride production near either of these facilities. As such, these facilities market their chlor-alkali products to uses other than vinyl chloride production.

Mercury cell technology has been systematically phased out in the U.S. since the 1970s by more efficient and modern membrane technology. ASHTA’s Ohio plant is nearing completion of this conversion.  Vallette fails to note this, or point out to readers that once the ASHTA plant is converted,[4] there will only be one remaining mercury cell technology plant in the U.S. and Canada. 

Vallette infers that chlorine shipped from Axiall’s WV plant supports vinyl chloride production in other locations – but he fails to prove it.  He claims chlorine from Axiall’s WV plant is shipped by barge to company “facilities” in Lake Charles, LA. But as noted above, chlorine has hundreds of uses, and these shipments could support any number of purposes other than vinyl chloride production. He fails to draw a direct connection, and instead draws dotted lines and misguides readers to believe that chlorine is shipped with regularity from WV to Lake Charles and ends up in PVC – when that is simply not the case.

Vallette’s claim that “all” of ASHTA’s chlorine production serves Cristal’s titanium dioxide manufacturing is a lie.   ASHTA’s press releases state the company “manufactures and markets chlorine and potassium-based chemicals to a broad customer base,” where its products “are used in a wide variety of end use markets including liquid fertilizers, runway deicers, food products and pharmaceuticals, agricultural chemicals, alkaline batteries, photochemistry, oil and gas production, industrial cleaners and water treatment.”[5] There’s no mention of titanium dioxide anywhere.  Cristal’s own website shows only some 20% of its titanium dioxide production is used to support a multitude of plastic uses.[6] So, simply for the sake of argument, if a small fraction of this small percentage is used for downstream PVC production in some way, does he really expect readers will think it somehow validates his thesis that the industry is a primary contributor of mercury pollution? 

Vallette’s statements regarding Dover Chemicals are entirely disingenuous. It is incorrect to assume, as Vallette does, that large portions of chlorinated paraffins are used in PVC.  Chlorinated paraffins produced by Dover Chemicals and others are used in a variety of plastics, rubbers, metal working fluids, automotive lubricants, paints, sealants, and coatings.  Had Vallette checked the pre-manufacturing notification Dover Chemicals filed with the U.S. EPA, he would have discovered that only 43% of the company’s production is used in all plastics, of which PVC products are one of several types consumed.[7] Another producer of chlorinated paraffins, Ineos, reported that 74% of its products are used in metal working fluids.[8] Even worse, Vallette’s assumption that Dover Chemicals sources its chlorine from the Natrium plant is based on information from 1984.  How anyone can assume that a supplier from 30 years ago is still a supplier today is incomprehensible.  

If Vallette firmly believes chlorinated paraffins are a significant ingredient for PVC products and made from chlorine based on mercury cell technology, he should prove it with current information.  He should also read the entire EPA docket on chlorinated paraffins[9] to understand that nearly every metal working processor in the U.S. that mills and drills high alloy metals – as well as rubber processors and automotive lubricant manufacturers, among other uses – depend on chlorinated paraffins to manufacture products and compounds he and the rest of the U.S. population use everyday.  Yet Vallette won’t do this because of his entrenched, reflexive anti-PVC views – views that were likely forged during the six years he spent working with fellow ideological extremists at Greenpeace.

But we’re apparently not allowed to state these facts, as he deems any attempt to challenge or question him an “ad hominum [sp] attack.” (More on that in a moment.)

Vallette conceals important facts that contradict his own conclusions. Vallette claims that vinyl products pour into the U.S. produced using mercury cell technology.  But he hides from readers the fact that the U.S. vinyl industry exports nearly one third of its resin production.[10] And while big box global retailers do bring in some vinyl products made outside of the U.S., it represents a very small amount of the vinyl consumed in the U.S.  And these multinational organizations that import offshore products have strict product safety compliance and sustainability policies that must be adhered to, in order to be able to market products through their organizations.[11]

Vallette’s misuse of “ad hominem” speaks volumes. We were especially amused by Vallette’s claim we had engaged in “ad hominum [sp] attacks.” Not only does he misspell the term, he may not understand what it means.  According to Merriam-Webster:  

Ad hominem: adjective (ad ho·mi·nem): “1) appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect 2) marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.”

So, an ad hominem attack would have been true, for example, if, say, we had invoked similarities between his assault on PVC to today’s attack-oriented political campaign environment, as he, in fact, asserted in responding to us. Or if we said his statements were simply wrong, without providing any justification. 

But we didn’t say or do anything of the kind. Do readers see any attacks on Mr. Vallette’s character in our response – where the substance of his claims are sidestepped or avoided? We don’t either. We let the facts speak for themselves.  Our rebuttals presented our positions.  And let’s not lose sight that Vallette is the one who initially spread misinformation about our industry, obligating us to respond and correct the record. 

Leading readers to ponder:  Would Vallette reflexively declare anyone who dares to challenge him in the open discourse guilty of launching an “ad hominum [sp]” attack, even when the facts prove him wrong?

Note to Medical Construction & Design Magazine’s (MCDM) Publisher Evan Mann

Dear Mr. Mann, 

My name is Dick Doyle, and I am the President & CEO of The Vinyl Institute.  I am following up on my letter to Michelle Tennis on May 2, 2016 highlighting the inaccurate and misleading characterizations about vinyl contained in an April 7, 2016 white paper promoted by Medical Construction & Design Magazine (MCDM) on behalf of its paid sponsor Nora, a rubber flooring manufacturer. 

Ms. Tennis told us that she forwarded my inquiry to you on May 2, 2016.  For convenience, I have attached a copy text of my letter to Ms. Tennis.  You may also find a copy of it posted on our website. 

It’s been over a week and we still haven’t heard from you.  I realize you are very busy, but we do hope you will take our inquiry seriously, as I trust we share a mutual interest to ensure your readers have the facts about the issues your publication covers and promotes.  

We certainly value this mission, as it’s the reason we’re writing you and seeking your action on this matter.  We hope you do as well, although we remain surprised to see that MCDM still has not taken action to remove this white paper from the website.

We eagerly await your response to our stated concerns in our May 2, 2016 letter.  Specifically, we’d like to know what MCDM’s procedures are in confirming the accuracy of the white papers it promotes to its readers on behalf of its advertisers.  And we reiterate our request to have this white paper immediately removed from MCDM, and that the Magazine send a proactive correction to its subscribers who received the original advertisement, to ensure readers are not misled.

We look forward to your prompt response to these important questions.

 

Thanks,Richard Doyle
President & CEO
The Vinyl Institute

See our letter to the editors HERE.

 

Addressing the Media’s Irresponsible Obsession With Junk Science

Addressing the Media’s Irresponsible Obsession With Junk Science

THE PREMISE:  Every time we read an article or turn on the TV, there seems to be a study warning consumers about something. But how reliable are they? Are they based on scientific facts -- or are they just scary gotcha headlines used to draw in readers and gin up ratings?

THE PROBLEM:  Reporters are blindly covering ideological-driven studies that lack any scientific integrity whatsoever – presenting the findings as sound, credible facts worthy of widespread public awareness.

WHY IT’S HARMFUL:  The public looks to the news media to provide factual information they can use to enhance their lives.  But when reporters give baseless studies undeserved attention, cities and communities across our nation are the ones who endure the consequences. Such publicity can cause unnecessary panic, instilling fear and worry on the minds of the consumer population.  And when the news media promote these invalid studies and give them national exposure, regulatory entities often feel pressured to take swift and decisive action – which can deny consumers the ability, the right, to make their own choices about safe products offering convenience and benefit to their everyday lives.

ARE ALL STUDIES BAD? No, and that’s important to note.  Studies that can withstand the rigor of proper scientific review and analysis, regardless of the sponsor, are worthy of attention and focus by the media. If a study upholds responsible scientific standards, we must give them careful consideration. And it’s important to confront this, if we are to distinguish studies that demand our collective focus from those that simply don’t deserve it.

GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE: Recently, Belgian researcher Soren Verstraete gave a presentation to the Endocrine Society capturing highlights from a March 2016 study asserting a correlation between ADHD and phthalates from vinyl blood bags, catheters, intubation devices and other sterile vinyl components and devices key to patient treatment and recovery.  As bizarre as this research premise appears, the study claimed a connection between these bags and the development of ADHD later in life by those who were evaluated. The problem is that it was an observational study, where no causation data was included in the review.  There were no controls on the study, and no additional testing was conducted. Also noteworthy, the ADHD diagnosis was subjective, as there was no biomarker in the study. And there was no consideration given to any number of other factors that could have contributed to the study participants’ ADHD diagnosis, such as pre-existing conditions, other drugs administered before or during their care in the hospital – or even events that occurred throughout their lives after their hospital stay. The researcher may as well have asked these individuals if they’d ever used the telephone – and drawn the same conclusions.

To give this study any respect or notable attention would be ludicrous.  Yet, the Washington Post’s Amy Ellis Nutt did just that – authoring an article that repeated, almost verbatim, a press release that was distributed to promote the researcher’s findings.   Ms. Nutt failed to question the scientific integrity of the results because it was a story too good for her not to tell.  And in doing so, she no doubt spread unnecessary fear on the part of hospital visitors everywhere that they, too, might develop ADHD if treated with vinyl medical products – which, for years, have saved countless human lives.

Then again, let’s remember The Washington Post is the same outlet that previously reported an observational analysis claiming a link between ADHD and kids with August birthdays (you read that correctly). Which raises some rather serious questions as to the organization’s standards in assessing the credibility of the studies it covers. 

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE? Special interests will no doubt continue to promote studies to advance their respective agendas with the news media.  That won’t change.  But it’s the media’s responsibility to scrutinize these studies and determine if they have the scientific strength to warrant exposure with readers and viewers.  The simple “scare-factor” of any given study cannot – must not ­­– be included in this calculus. To this end, reporters, such as Ms. Nutt, must ask themselves all of the following questions when evaluating a study’s integrity:

  • Is it an observational study?  If it is, the results are inconclusive.  Any study that fails to provide in-depth scientific analysis, and is based solely on observing the behavior of a group of participants, lacks proper scientific credibility, as any number of unknowns, such as those revealed in the ADHD example, can be contributing factors.
  • Is it peer-reviewed?  If not, it fails to include the proper checks and balances, and represents only the views of the authors themselves, without any independent validation.
  • Is causation proven? Researchers often confuse correlation with causation.  Just because two data points may share a relationship doesn’t mean one causes the other. (Example: People who like bananas tend to drink more coffee. Does eating bananas cause one to drink coffee? Probably not.) Studies that cannot demonstrate a clear causal connection between the claim and the conclusion cannot be taken seriously.
  • Is the study published in a reputable journal?  Research appearing in obscure outlets that fail to garner the support and respect of the broad scientific or medical community must be approached with a sensible degree of skepticism. And when those outlets have a specific ideological outlook, where the study’s conclusions support the advocacy efforts of the publisher, it’s usually because the quality of the research wasn’t strong enough to appear in a more reputable venue.   
  • Is the sample size substantial? If the number of people in a given study is an insignificant sum, how can any reliable scientific conclusions be drawn from it?
  • Is it an outlier? One study that challenges the body of scientific literature on a particular subject should not reflexively attract media attention just because it’s different, as is often the case today.  In fact, such findings should be approached with a strong sense of suspicion, and if the research lacks any of the standards described here, it doesn’t deserve our attention.
  • Are the same standards being applied to both NGO and industry studies? Industry studies are often automatically dismissed by the media – regardless of their scientific vigor – while many NGO studies lacking any legitimacy are provided widespread exposure.  To ensure the journalism ethos of fairness and objectivity is achieved, both NGO and industry funded research must be weighted equally against these standards.

It’s the media’s responsibility to ask these responsible questions when determining whether a scientific study merits public awareness.  And when reporters fail to do this, they perform a disservice to their readers.  Which is why we will continue to use this forum to expose media organizations, such as The Washington Post, when they forsake their obligations in this regard.

5.11.16 UPDATE: John Oliver recently touched on many of these exact points in a recent “Last Week Tonight” segment. He overlooks the fact that ideological-minded groups should be held to the same high standards expected of industry in assessing the credibility of sponsored scientific studies.  But he makes a strong case that the media too often shirks its responsibility to the public in failing to distinguish junk science from the real thing. 

Watch Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw