A recent New York Times story featured several misleading claims regarding PVC pipe. We’re correcting them here.
Two outlets recently published false information about vinyl that require correction. Both articles missed key parts of the story – which the reporters could have easily found.
Our first stop is Wisconsin. In a piece for WisCONTEXT, reporter Scott Gordon [The Emerging Evidence of BPA’s Effects On Human Development; 10/26] quotes a psychologist, Heather Molenda-Figueira, who falsely asserts that BPA is a component of PVC. It’s not. Period. BPA is a different compound altogether than PVC. And to air this misrepresentation distorts the facts and deceives readers.
Mr. Gordon has an obligation to ensure the statements of those he interviews are factually sound before he publishes his stories. But he didn’t do that in this case. It wouldn’t have taken much effort on Mr. Gordon’s part to contact us on this point, and that simple action would have prevented the public from being misled. In the interest of providing readers accurate information, we trust Mr. Gordon will strike this reference and revise his article accordingly.
Our next stop is in Michigan, where a piece in Bridge Magazine by Chad Selweski [Chemical Valley and the threat to Michigan’s drinking water; 10/31] misleads readers about PVC and omits key facts. The article focuses on industrial manufacturers in Sarnia, Ontario, where Mr. Selweski cites a biologist who claims vinyl chloride used for “plastics and PVC pipe” could be a source of alleged ongoing emissions there.
There’s just one problem – there is no vinyl chloride or PVC production taking place in Sarnia. And there hasn’t been for nearly a decade, as the only PVC resin plant there closed back in in 2008.
But Mr. Selweski fails to disclose this to readers, and instead the article leads them to believe vinyl chloride for PVC production is causing emissions in that area – and raises responsible questions regarding the article’s other claims, and its overall credibility.
Reporters should address these mistakes and work diligently to avoid similar errors in the future. It’s why Vinyl Verified exists – and we will continue to correct the record when articles misinform the public about vinyl and PVC moving forward.
We learned recently that representatives at the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association (DIPRA) have been contacting municipalities requesting rare pictures of broken PVC pipe.
Of course, it’s certainly possible DIPRA might be looking for these images to study why PVC pipe breaks are so uncommon. DIPRA is fully aware of the facts that prove PVC pipe’s unmatched durability in the installed environment, including extreme weather conditions. So it’s within the realm of possibility that DIPRA might be searching for these pictures to determine ways ductile iron pipe might emulate its performance in this regard.
But our guess is that DIPRA will likely use them to do what it does best – distort the facts and continue to deceive the public about our material.
Here’s what DIPRA won’t tell you, if its representatives are able to find the pictures they’re desperately seeking, to further mislead the public about PVC pipe:
- PVC pipe breaks are incredibly rare. DIPRA predictably won’t disclose that in the unusual instance when such breaks occur, it often has nothing to do with the integrity of the pipe itself. Improper installation is the leading cause. DIPRA doesn’t want you to know this, of course, because they want to mislead you to think the material is somehow inherently flawed. So we’ll make sure you have the facts.
- PVC pipe has twice the projected lifespan of ductile iron pipe. It is a non-corrosive material, unlike iron pipe, and PVC pipe has the lowest water main break rate of all pipe materials in North America.
- PVC pipe can withstand extreme temperatures. Remember that time last winter when you were caught in horrible traffic, and late for work, because a water main broke in your area? Wasn’t that fun? Odds are that was an iron pipe that failed. Studies show PVC pipes offer a high degree of resilience in freezing conditions and even after 25 years, meet all new pipe requirements.
- PVC pipe has a lower carbon footprint than ductile iron pipe, too. PVC pipe is lighter to transport, requires less heavy machinery to install – and its longer lifespan means fewer repairs or replacements, resulting in lower carbon emissions.
Now, if DIPRA really wants to have an informed debate about the durability of pipe materials today, it might care to look at iron pipe failures. Iron pipes have some of the highest break rates in North America, according to a study by the Buried Structures Laboratory at Utah State University. Not only that, but PVC has the lowest break rate of any pipe tested.
It’s always a safe bet that DIPRA won’t convey an accurate view of PVC pipe. We don’t expect the organization will ever acknowledge that PVC pipe is indeed the stronger, more affordable, more durable, and more eco-friendly, material option today.
But what is likely to happen is that DIPRA will continue to use discredited studies to distort the facts about PVC pipe. And it will do everything it can to try and hold on to iron pipe’s failing monopoly, as it attempts to block states from being allowed to even consider PVC pipe as a replacement material – which will only drive up costs for U.S. taxpayers.
But we will be there, every step of the way, to call DIPRA out – and ensure the facts about PVC pipe prevail.
On 8/17, Chris Bentley, a reporter with Architect Magazine (ARCHITECT), published a story that included an inaccurate statement about PVC. The article also quoted an individual with a history of misleading the public on PVC – without disclosing the financial motivations fueling his organization’s years-long distortion campaign against vinyl material.
Yet when Dick Doyle, CEO of the Vinyl Institute (VI), submitted a Letter-to-the-Editor (LTE) to clarify the facts for ARCHITECT readers … ARCHITECT refused to run it.
Mr. Bentley’s original article incorrectly claimed some PVCs were “reinforced” with asbestos. The assertion is flatly untrue. The story also quoted Jim Vallette of the Healthy Building Network (HBN), and positioned him as a credible source on PVC issues. That’s wrong, too. We’ve corrected Mr. Vallette and HBN multiple times in the past for conflating statistics and advancing misinformation about PVC in the discourse. What’s more, the article failed to acknowledge that Mr. Vallette’s organization markets anti-PVC business services, and has a financial incentive to make irresponsible claims about vinyl products.
Mr. Doyle’s LTE spelled out these facts. But the magazine ignored multiple requests to publish it, and instead issued a story correction. The wording of the correction, though, continued to leave readers with the misimpression that asbestos may found in certain vinyl products. And it avoided any reference to HBN’s anti-PVC business services, which would have given readers the chance to evaluate for themselves the reliability of Mr. Vallette’s positions.
After continued back and forth, ARCHITECT then offered to take an isolated quote from Mr. Doyle’s LTE challenging the asbestos claims, and insert it into the online article. (It’s worth noting the original story was entirely one-sided, and lacked any balance or perspective from industry when it originally published.)
But even with that modification, the story still failed to address the credibility issues confronting Mr. Vallette and HBN. And ARCHITECT remained defiant in denying Mr. Doyle the opportunity to clarify those facts for readers.
So, in the interest of transparency, we’ll publish Mr. Doyle’s LTE – which ARCHITECT refused to run – in its entirety here:
Inaccurate Statements About PVC
Architect Magazine failed to disclose a conflict-of-interest of an agenda-driven opponent of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) featured in a recent story ("The EPA is Rolling Back Regulations on Potentially Harmful Chemicals," August 17, 2017). The author, Chris Bentley, also made several inaccurate statements regarding PVC material that must be corrected.
Jim Vallette of the Healthy Building Network is no expert on PVC. In fact, he has a track record of making false claims about it – perhaps because he knows provocative statements about PVC, regardless of the merits, will attract greater publicity for himself and possibly increase revenue for his organization’s anti-PVC business services.
It’s unclear whether Mr. Bentley was fed misinformation by Mr. Vallette, or composed his misrepresentations about PVC and asbestos on his own. Either way, we’ll be clear: Asbestos is not used in PVC piping products or vinyl siding products, and it was voluntarily phased out of vinyl flooring products in the mid 1980’s.
We’re concerned Architect Magazine would source Mr. Vallette without also noting that his views against PVC are financially motivated. And we’re troubled Mr. Bentley would publish a story containing false information about PVC that egregiously misleads readers without first confirming the facts.
Readers deserve better.
By Richard Doyle, president & CEO of the Vinyl Institute
We recently learned that the Healthy Building Network (HBN), a group with a self-described mission to “phase-out PVC building products,” is developing a new subscription research program on the PVC supply chain, including chlorine and vinyl chloride monomer (VCM). Ironically -- some might say brazenly – HBN is seeking support from the PVC industry to fund it.
HBN has a long, undeniable history of distorting the facts on PVC. We’ve documented them here, here, here, and here. The group’s statements and baseless claims against our industry have revealed an extraordinary lack of factual understanding and credibility regarding important matters involving PVC.
Take, for example, HBN’s emphasis on global chlor-alkali processes, some of which around the world use asbestos and mercury during production. These processes are heavily regulated and have been proven safe. But HBN has falsely claimed our industry is responsible for the majority of asbestos use in the United States. That, however, is not true, as some 80 percent of chlor-alkali production is used in a wide array of non-PVC products – including pharmaceuticals, water treatment, food additives, and other building material products. In fact, the major use of asbestos today on a global basis is cement-asbestos board building materials and large diameter concrete drainage and sewer pipe. In the United States, the use of asbestos in these materials has been discontinued decades ago, while other parts of the world still allow it.
Despite these facts, HBN continues to advance inaccurate information in the discourse about our industry. We’ve corrected them before, yet they repeatedly deceive the public. Which raises a rather obvious question in the context of the group’s current research endeavor: If HBN truly cares about “accelerating the sun-setting of some high hazard substances,” as it has stated, why is it exclusively fixated on PVC? And what does that say about the group’s ability to be remotely independent about the way they collect, curate and present their findings on PVC?
What it tells us is that HBN has little interest in advancing the facts, and may be motivated more by establishing ways to profit off its anti-PVC campaigns – something we’ve exposed before here on VinylVerified.
It should surprise no one that under HBN’s proposed subscriber agreement, participating organizations would provide information to the group to use as HBN sees fit. This means that information volunteered as part of a good faith effort to build a better business could be used to further HBN’s ideological agenda – one openly hostile to the continued use of PVC products.
We should also point out that the data HBN seeks to collect, and have our industry finance, already exists. IHS Markit, an independent, third-party organization with no ulterior or hidden agenda, conducts global assessments of the PVC resin, vinyl chloride monomers, and chlor-alkali industry. And IHS Markit provides companies with unbiased data, contrary to what HBN would likely deliver.
Make no mistake: This purported olive branch by HBN is nothing more than an attempt to gain access and influence the decisions of our industry, and advance HBN’s broader mission to remove PVC from the marketplace. It is a common tactic used by many activist organizations. It should be noted that HBN’s founder, Bill Walsh, is a Greenpeace alum – a group that has used many of the same maneuvers to achieve its ends, often at great expense to companies that choose to partner with them in good faith.
This isn’t about information. It’s about intimidation. HBN needs to prove that it is a responsible group committed to an open and transparent process that recognizes the industry’s achievements and focuses on continuous performance improvement, rather than eliminating the PVC industry. This approach would help contributors be assured their money is being spent in good faith.
“The goal of The New York Times is to cover the news as impartially as possible,” reads the NYT’s own Standards and Ethics policy for its reporters. “Few writers need to be reminded that we seek and publish a response from anyone criticized in our pages. But when the criticism is serious, we have a special obligation to describe the scope of the accusation and let the subject respond in detail. No subject should be taken by surprise when the paper appears, or feel that there was no chance to respond.”
NYT’s Roni Caryn Rabin could use a refresher course on her employer’s own journalism standards. Because nowhere in her recent 1,350+ word abomination on phthalates [The Chemicals in Your Mac and Cheese] does she honor her duty-bound responsibility to provide readers any substantive countervailing viewpoints that would have provided critical perspective on this important issue. What’s more, she bases her entire report on a non-peer-reviewed disgrace of a study concocted by a team of agenda-driven special interests – one that would have absolutely no chance of being published by any credible scientific publication.
We’ll be specific:
The study, which Ms. Rabin blindly promotes, falsely expects readers to accept that exposure to phthalates – at any level – is toxic to humans. That’s important, because the study’s authors were unable to detect the presence of phthalates in the foods they examined when using the widely accepted, and scientifically proven, parts-per-million standard. That’s why they had to reset their scopes and apply a parts-per-billion threshold – a standard that is universally rejected for determining toxicity, as it is 1,000 times beyond what the vast scientific community uses to assess it.
But that wasn’t enough to stop Ms. Rabin from inciting mass hysteria – and enhancing her own profile, too, with a click-bait story hardly worthy of NYT-level exposure. Such conduct raises serious questions with respect to her journalistic integrity.
That’s the kindest explanation for Ms. Rabin’s actions. Because another possibility is that she might have knowingly played a part in advancing the hidden motives of the groups that commissioned the flawed research. The organizations behind this study have been petitioning the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for years to de-authorize all phthalates from the marketplace. But their efforts have stalled over the past five months, largely because their arguments lack any and all credibility.
The release of this baseless study is an obvious attempt to reinvigorate this campaign. And what better way to gain the attention of policy makers than by scaring the public, with an assist from a friendly puppet at the NYT.
Ms. Rabin will no doubt defend her decision to cover this unverified, unsubstantiated study. But she can’t justify her decision to exclude any substantive response from industry or academia challenging the study’s conclusions.
Prior to publication, the Flexible Vinyl Alliance put Ms. Rabin in touch with William Carroll, Adjunct Professor of Chemistry at Indiana University, who spent over 30 years in the vinyl industry. Dr. Carroll spoke with Ms. Rabin at length, where he explained to her that exposure levels matter – and that extremely small exposure to phthalates are insignificant. But there’s no reference to this interview in her story.
(In fairness, Ms. Rabin’s article does indirectly cite an attorney who noted that phthalates are being phased out of foods. It constitutes 37 words of her 1,372-word story. A generous 2.6 percent of her entire article.)
Mr. Rabin denies readers any balance to the study’s claims – so they might decide, for themselves, whether the study could be trusted on the merits. Instead, she gives a group of special interests an open microphone to push a set of distortions that even ninth grade chemistry students would find laughable.
We at Vinyl Verified are accustomed to confronting stories where reporters at least attempt to convey a modicum of objectivity when covering industry. They typically bury a few corporate spokesperson quotes at the end, so they can check the box and claim industry’s side has been fairly represented.
But Ms. Rabin fails even that low expectation.
“It is imperative that The Times and its staff maintain the highest possible standards to ensure that we do nothing that might erode readers’ faith and confidence in our news columns,” the NYT’s Standards and Ethics reporter policy states. “This means that the journalism we practice daily must be beyond reproach.”
This self-described commitment to upholding “the highest possible standards” compelled us to reach out to the paper’s Public Editor, Liz Spayd. We wanted to point out Ms. Rabin’s indiscretions to the outlet’s internal police force – so that the paper would live up to its word, and hopefully take action and hold her publicly accountable.
But we discovered that Ms. Spayd was terminated last month, reportedly because others at the paper didn’t like her criticism of their coverage. And it seems the NYT has little interest in holding its reporters publicly accountable to its own standards anymore, because the paper announced that it has eliminated the Public Editor position altogether.
Without this last line of defense, it appears reporters like Ms. Rabin are now free and clear to erode reader confidence at will – and mislead them with impunity.