The Spruce Flip-Flops on Vinyl Flooring

It’s unusual when a writer correctly addresses the benefits of vinyl material -- then publishes a slew of deceptive attacks against vinyl flooring just a few months later. 

But when that same writer runs a business specializing in a competing flooring material, the dots start to connect. 

In a May 2019 article, Joseph Lewitin, a guest writer for the home improvement site “The Spruce,” penned a glowing review of the many qualities that make vinyl flooring an excellent option for homeowners:

“Vinyl flooring is a durable and resilient material that is both stain- and water-resistant, but perhaps the real draw is its versatility. Vinyl comes in tiles, sheets, and planks and can be printed with an almost endless array of colors, patterns, and textures. It can look like natural materials or contain complex geometric patterns with a range of vibrant, eye-catching colors.”

He continued: 

“Vinyl flooring can be manufactured to closely resemble any of a number of natural materials. … The faux wood has a rich golden hue that pairs pleasantly with the white cabinets and the hardwood furnishings in the space. The flooring combines the visual appeal of hardwood with the durability and easy maintenance of vinyl. … Vinyl is ideal for mimicking traditional tile work, such as tessellation or Victorian motifs. The color combinations are almost endless, and the details are as fine as those of hand-laid tiles, all in a material that you can install yourself.”

So we were admittedly confused when he changed his tune a few months later in an August 2019 article in the same outlet titled “The Environmental Impact of Vinyl Flooring.” In it, Mr. Lewitin repeats many of the same irresponsible claims about vinyl flooring that agenda-driven opponents of the material have perpetuated for years. We’ll be specific: 

• He portrays the PVC manufacturing process as a major producer of dioxin -- he’s wrong. Based on the 2017 EPA Toxic Release Inventory Data, chlor-vinyl dioxin emissions to air and water is 5% of all regulated sources of dioxin. Unregulated sources, such as uncontrolled burning like forest fires account for the majority of dioxin emissions in the U.S. In fact, residential wood burning has been estimated to be double the amount of dioxin emissions to air from PVC resin production.

• He incites baseless fear and hysteria over phthalates in vinyl floors -- but neglects to mention no credible science exists that remotely suggests these additives create any negative impact on human health.

• He stokes alarmism by claiming the storage facilities for chlorine used to make PVC could be exploited by terrorists -- but he omits that these plants have dramatically improved their security procedures and work closely with the Department of Homeland Security to prevent such an event. 

• He claims vinyl flooring emits volatile organic compounds (VOC) -- but neglects to mention that vinyl flooring products are low emitters and that manufacturers certify their products to the very stringent California VOC emissions standard.

• He singles out emissions of vinyl flooring in house fires, but he fails to note that all materials -- including wood -- emit harmful chemicals in the event of an accidental fire. 

• He insinuates that asbestos is used in adhesives for vinyl tile installation -- he’s wrong (again). Asbestos formerly used in one type of adhesive has not been used in the last 35 years.

• He misrepresents vinyl flooring tile’s environmental qualities. He makes broad, baseless claims to vinyl flooring’s composition, recyclability and disposal. But the material’s superior durability and longevity minimize energy use by requiring fewer repairs and avoiding frequent replacement when compared to other flooring materials.

This brings us to an important question: Why did Mr. Lewitin make a sudden 180° on vinyl flooring? The Spruce points out that Mr. Lewitin “started his own business specializing in stone flooring,” which is a direct competitor to vinyl flooring. And with vinyl flooring increasing in popularity everywhere, perhaps he realized that scaring the public with deceptive claims about competing materials -- instead of conveying the facts -- is a more effective business strategy. Readers are also right to wonder why the editors at The Spruce didn’t pick up on Mr. Lewitin’s turnabout on vinyl flooring -- and published his piece filled with misleading characterizations about vinyl material despite the possible conflict of interest. 

Vinyl flooring is one of the safest, most durable, resilient and versatile products on the market today. Readers deserve to have the facts on flooring issues -- not competitively-motivated views disguised as independent commentary.

Consumer Reports Misleads Readers on PVC

A recent article in Consumer Reports is riddled with misleading claims about the safety of PVC products. When we brought these errors to the attention of the editors at Consumer Reports, they corrected only the most egregious and indefensible mistake and ignored the rest. In the interest of transparency, it’s important that readers know there are a number of other inaccurate and misleading points in the outlet’s one-sided article -- points Consumer Reports declined to correct. 

Mr. Loria, the author of this article, incorrectly suggests that phthalates used in PVC products are unsafe. The truth is that phthalates have been safely used in consumer and commercial products for more than 50 years. Rigorous risk assessments by government agencies in the U.S., Europe, Canada, and Australia have all concluded that phthalates present low-risks in their intended use. He irresponsible stokes unnecessary fear of perfectly safe products. 

Mr. Loria also bases his story on a study that used contrived conditions with very little applicability to real-world use of plastic products. The study itself notes that “it is important to highlight that [the researchers’] aim was not to draw conclusions regarding the health impacts of plastics” [emphasis added]. 

But that is exactly what Mr. Loria does in his article. Even though he includes a caveat that plastic products “aren't necessarily harmful to human health,” he uses these flawed findings to advocate for the avoidance of plastics whenever possible. He also presents the findings of the study with very little qualification or discussion of their limitations. As a result, readers are misled to believe that the products they use every day are, in fact, harmful. And it doesn’t live up to the high standards of an organization that self-proclaims an adherence to  “truth, transparency, and fairness in the marketplace.”

Quite the opposite.  Mr. Loria ignored journalistic standards of fairness and sourcing by not seeking comments from anyone with a dissenting view. The result is a one-sided article that fails to provide readers with the facts and context they deserve. Had Mr. Loria contacted any organization with a view contrary to his preferred narrative, he would have been informed of his errors and given critical context on the issue to ensure that his readers were not misled. 

We brought this oversight to the attention of Consumer Reports and provided them with the statement below. They elected not to print it and chose, instead, to deny their readers a balanced view of the issue. Here is the statement we asked them to include in the article:

Consumers have a right to the facts — and they indisputably show that PVC is a safe and reliable material. The study at the center of this article offers no evidence to support the claim that PVC or other plastic products pose any human health risk in normal use. Phthalates in flexible PVC have been safely used in consumer and commercial products for more than 50 years and rigorous risk assessments by government agencies in the US, Europe, Canada, and Australia have concluded that they present low-risks during intended use. 

Sadly, this kind of one-sided and misleading treatment is all too common in reporting on PVC products. Publications like Consumer Reports should provide consumers with a complete picture regarding the products they use. The public deserves better than slanted coverage from outlets claiming to look out for their best interest. That’s why we will continue to hold those reporters and outlets accountable when they miss the mark on PVC.

MORE: Getting Smart Around Phthalates

The Facts About Vinyl Gloves in Food Contact

When activist organizations spread misinformation about vinyl products, we set the record straight. Here’s their latest distortion:

A Roundup of Junk Science Claims About Vinyl

In the last few weeks, we’ve seen several outlets post misleading or otherwise false claims about vinyl products. So we decided to round them up and debunk each one.

BobVila.com Misleads Readers on Vinyl Flooring and PVC Shower Curtains

BobVila.com recently claimed that plasticizers used in vinyl flooring can be dangerous. The truth is that phthalates have been safely used for decades. Even the strictly regulated State of California has researched and now issued “safe use determinations” for plasticizers in vinyl flooring and vinyl carpet tiles employing a variety of phthalates. Vinyl flooring is safe, durable, attractive and cost-effective. That’s why homeowners and builders choose it over other more expensive products.

They also claimed that PVC shower curtains can be harmful to human health. In fact, PVC is perfectly safe when used in shower curtains. BobVila.com engages in sensational, fear-mongering language with no evidence to support their claims. PVC is an inert material and is not considered a carcinogen by any authoritative body.

MORE: Columbia Researcher’s Careless Statement On Vinyl Flooring

MORE: The Environmental Working Group is Wrong About PVC Shower Curtains

---

Business Insider Promotes Junk Science on PVC Bibs

Business Insider recently claimed that PVC baby bibs can contain lead. They don’t. U.S.-made PVC bibs have never contained lead, and importers discontinued using lead in these products over a decade ago. 

MORE: What Makes a Good Study?

---

The Independent Stokes Unnecessary Fear About Phthalates

The Independent recently promoted sensationalist claims about phthalates used to make rigid vinyl flexible. Phthalates have been safely used for more than 50 years and are some of the most tested substances in the world. Rigorous risk assessments by multiple government agencies in the United States, Europe, Canada and Australia have concluded that many phthalates present a low-risk for their current intended uses.

MORE: Getting Smart Around Phthalates and PVC

National Geographic Misleads Readers on PVC Plastic Wrap

In a recent article, National Geographic reporter Sarah Gibbens relies on a series of unfounded claims about the health and environmental impacts of PVC to criticize plastic wrap products like Saran™ Wrap. Worse, the article confuses readers by referring to compounds interchangeably while falsely implying that products like Saran™ Wrap contain chemicals that have been absent for decades. Here are the facts:

Saran™ Wrap is not made with polyvinylidene chloride or vinyl chloride in any form. Saran™ Wrap does not contain chloride. It is made from polyethylene -- and has been for more than 15 years in the U.S. market. In fact, Ms. Gibbens notes that Saran™ Wrap transitioned away from polyvinylidene chloride years ago, but later contradicts herself by erroneously claiming that it still contains as much as 13% vinyl chloride. If the reporter can’t get her facts straight on even this most basic issue, how can readers trust any of her claims?

There is no health risk to “wrapping [your] food in a plastic made with chloride.” Virtually all food contains chloride in far higher quantities than could ever be replicated by contact with PVC wrap. Sodium chloride, or table salt, is one of the most common ingredients in the average diet. It is used as a preservative, a flavoring aide, and in the curing process. The kind of sensationalist language used by Ms. Gibbens is overblown and not based on fact. 

The FDA does not regulate the use of PVC in food packaging in the way the author describes. Ms. Gibbens claims the FDA regulates PVC food packaging, yet the source she cites is an FDA guidance document – not a regulation – for calculating the average amount of a person’s diet that comes into contact with certain materials. The guidance document makes no claims about safety. If Ms. Gibbens is referring to a different “regulation,” she should produce it for her readers. 

PVC does not release dioxins in landfills.  The author is misrepresenting information from the National Institutes of Health (which she incorrectly attributes to the World Health Organization). As we’ve explained before, dioxins are a byproduct of nearly every material when burned in an accidental fire. And PVC is no different from any other material in this regard. Ms. Gibbens should take better care to accurately represent the science. 

DEHA plasticizers have been used for years with no harmful health effects. The author claims the “effects [of DEHA] on human health are unclear.” Yet she disregards the findings of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), which completed a toxicity review on DEHA and found that it has been thoroughly studied over five decades -- and any health concerns are unproven or lack human relevance. 

This piece is a prime example of journalistic malpractice (which is becoming a pattern for National Geographic). As explained above, the piece gets it wrong on the facts – big and small – and stokes baseless panic among readers about products that are perfectly safe and have been in use for decades. As long as media outlets continue to promote this kind of misinformation, we will continue to do their homework for them -- and hold them accountable. 

MORE: National Geographic Misleads Readers On Vinyl And Phthalates

National Geographic Misleads Readers on Vinyl and Phthalates

National Geographic recently published a story containing misleading and irresponsible claims about vinyl products and phthalates. The reporter disregarded her journalistic responsibility to report the facts and chose to feature a number of sensationalist allegations that have no scientific credibility. Here’s what she got wrong:

Greenpeace Distorts Facts on PVC

A recent Greenpeace report ranking retailers on their policies regarding the use of plastics makes a number of inaccurate and misleading references to PVC (polyvinyl chloride). We’ll correct them here: 

Greenpeace Distortion: 

“Retailers should prioritize eliminating the most problematic and unnecessary plastics that are harmful to human health; that regularly enter the environment; that are not recyclable, or often end up in landfills or incinerators despite recyclability claims; and that have existing alternatives. Problematic and unnecessary plastics include, but are not limited to, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) [...]”

Indisputable Facts: 

• PVC is not harmful to human health;

• Nearly 70 percent of the PVC resin produced in the U.S. goes into durable applications in use for more than 25 years;

• PVC is recyclable;

• According to the EPA, only 0.8 percent of all landfilled material is PVC;

• In many applications, there are no proven or viable alternatives to PVC.

PVC has been safely used in thousands of commercial and consumer products for over half a century. There is no scientific evidence showing PVC to be “harmful to human health” when used for its intended purpose. In fact, PVC provides enormous human benefits by replacing glass and other materials that can shatter or cause potential harm. It also offers better sanitary alternatives in applications such as food packaging.

More vinyl is recycled in the U.S. and Canada every year than exists in all of the landfills in both countries. Since 2014, there has been a 40 percent increase in post-consumer vinyl recycling. Even more impressive, of all the plastics in landfills, vinyl makes up less than 3 percent -- and only 0.8 percent of all landfilled material is PVC. That’s because vinyl products are built to last, as the vast majority of PVC that’s ever been produced is still in service today (PVC pipe can last more than 100 years).

We will always push ourselves to do more. That’s why we just announced a new industry-wide sustainability initiative called Vantage Vinyl with the goal of further improving the sustainability of vinyl products.

Greenpeace’s claims against PVC are nothing new -- the group has been ideologically opposed to PVC for decades, evidenced by its long track record of spreading disinformation about our industry. Those who spend the time to learn the facts are well aware that Greenpeace’s claims about PVC have little credibility.  

As long as groups like Greenpeace perpetuate inaccurate narratives about PVC in the public discourse, we’ll continue to hold them accountable by setting the record straight.

What Makes a Good Study?

We’ve all seen news segments and click-bait headlines touting a “new scientific study” containing alarming health claims that make us question if we should avoid certain products or change our daily behaviors. (We’ve touched on this topic before). Some of these reports are grounded in sound science and are worthy of our time – the American Cancer Society’s recent recommendation lowering the suggested age for colonoscopy screenings from 50 to 45 is one example. But in today’s report-first / clarify-later (or never) news environment, many studies that are utterly worthless gain national attention – because the views they generate are simply too tempting for news organizations to fact check. And when news outlets blindly cover these “junk” studies without determining if they have any redeeming scientific qualities, they do a great disservice to the American public.

Nearly 50% of all studies the news media report turn out to be wrong. And when a more robust study on the same topic reaches a different conclusion, the facts rarely receive the same level of exposure as the initial faulty coverage. That gives readers and viewers little reason to question the legitimacy of bad studies, which in turn incites baseless public fear and leads many to make unnecessary changes to the way they lead their lives.

Elements of Good Research

The characteristics of a credible study aren’t complicated: They must be rigorous, thorough, and replicable. But many studies today fall well short of those standards and make observational claims with small sample sizes where no reliable scientific conclusions can possibly be drawn.

Statistical Significance

Statistically significant and clinically important results exhibit important, meaningful differences between study subject groups. If a study does not have a large enough sample size, it could fail to detect an important difference between subject groups. If a study has enough participants, even the most trivial differences between groups might indicate a statistical trend, but the data doesn’t necessarily mean these differences are clinically important or meaningful to normal people. The best practice is not solely about selecting a certain sample size – it’s the extent that the researcher goes to eliminate doubt and to build trust in the results by employing the best methods of study design.

Methodology

Trustworthy studies (1) rely on epidemiological research, assuming the sample sizes are sufficient and follow the study subject group practices noted above (2) use meta-analysis (3) follow a peer-review process or (4) apply a randomized controlled trial, the gold standard. In public health, epidemiologists are taught to look at the probability value (p-value) to determine if the observed differences between subject group outcomes (i.e. ill and not ill) are true differences, or if the observed outcomes are simply a result of chance. But many academic researchers don’t take the time to use rigid epidemiological methods, instead making far-reaching conclusions based on limited evidence or small numbers of people. Some even engage in data manipulation to achieve dubious statistical outcomes (this practice is called p-hacking, you can read more about it here). According to the NIH, a best practice for all researchers would be to explain why the claimed relationship may indeed be real, and not a rare fluke or misuse of data analysis methods. For example, demonstrating why results agree with other studies in different human populations would further clarify statistical value. Clinical researchers are also encouraged to consider other relevant measures because of the severe limitations on patient sampling and hypothesis testing.

Peer-Review

Peer-review is one of the most important processes in scientific research. In the best case, peer-review strengthens quality control on studies before they are released to the public. For that reason, trustworthy scientific journals require all submissions to be peer-reviewed. But not all peer-reviews are equally rigorous. A good peer-review should be critical and performed by qualified researchers who do not share affiliations or ideological biases with the author of the study being reviewed (you can read more about what makes a good peer-review from the American Chemical Society here). Unfortunately, researchers often fail to use objective peer-reviewers and opt for those who are already predisposed to support their conclusions.

Junk Science in Action

Vinyl material is often the target of this kind of shoddy science and reporting. Activists, agenda-driven researchers, and some journalists often promote poorly designed and executed studies that malign vinyl. Because vinyl products and manufacturing processes are complex and highly technical, most readers aren’t able to sort fact from fiction in these studies. Here are a few recent examples:

New York Times on ‘chemicals in your mac and cheese.’ In 2017, the New York Times ran a story based on an observational study that purported to identify toxic chemicals in mac and cheese from vinyl containers. Just a few problems: the study doesn’t actually say anything about the effects of those chemicals, it just assumes that they’re inherently toxic, which isn’t true. Second, the study invents a new standard for exposure which contradicts the scientifically accepted standard. The reporter didn’t note either of these facts even though they were provided to her before publication. You can read more here: NYT’s Rabin Compromises Journalistic Integrity In “Click-bait” Clown Story On Phthalates

ABC News promotes a flawed study on phthalates and language delays. In 2018, an ABC affiliate in Duluth, MN ran a segment about a study that claimed exposure to vinyl products could cause language delays in children. The study in question was an observational study with a minuscule sample size of only about 1,200 people (a small sample for this type of study), upon which it based a far-fetched cause-and-effect relationship. Additionally, the study relied on self-reported questionnaires which are highly unscientific. The reporter failed to provide any of this important context for viewers; in fact, she didn’t even identify the study so that viewers could verify her report. More about this report here: Correcting The Record On Vinyl And Phthalates

Environmental Health News article on phthalates and motor skills. Most recently, Environmental Health News published an article about a study on phthalate exposure and vinyl material. EHN starts off with the assertion that “[k]ids exposed to phthalates prenatally and as 3-year-olds have decreased motor skills later in their childhood.” They don’t acknowledge until the second-to-last paragraph that the study doesn’t actually prove that. And once again, the study observed only 209 kids; a sample size far too low to draw such overbroad conclusions.

Why Good Science Matters

When reporters allow sensational findings of flawed studies to drive their decision-making in what they relay to the public, they spread confusion and promote inaccurate information that can have real-world consequences. One only has to look as far as the child vaccination issue to understand how widely-reported junk science can lead people to make poor decisions that can impact public health and safety. For years, observational studies claiming a link between the MMR (measles) vaccine and autism dominated the headlines, leading many parents to avoid immunizing their children. As a result, measles outbreaks are now on the rise. But, landmark research on the MMR vaccine which was recently completed that included 657,461 children studied over 20 years in a randomized control trial (the most rigorous standard in study design) found no link between the vaccine and autism. And as expected, the attention this study received paled in comparison to the misleading reports from the past decade.

Media responsibility matters. And when journalists reflexively publish click-bait stories based on studies they know have no scientific credibility, they willfully deceive readers and viewers. It doesn’t take much to ascertain whether a particular research report passes the red face test.

It just requires the reporters who cover them to care.

MORE: Scientific Studies, Last Week Tonight