Health Care Without Harm Wants to Deny Front Line Workers Access to the Most Proven Protective Material on the Market: PVC

Health Care Without Harm (HCWH) has a long and well-documented history of ideological opposition to PVC. They have taken every opportunity to push misleading, anti-PVC talking points, which has required us to publicly correct their misstatements and misinformation on numerous occasions. 

But recently, HCWH has reached a new low. In the middle of a global pandemic, when PVC products are being used by our essential medical professionals to protect themselves from the virus, HCWH has decided to put their ideology above public health by attacking PVC and promoting inferior and untested alternatives. 

We’ve written before on why PVC is critically important to the healthcare industry. That’s because PVC is easy to clean, resilient to harsh cleaners, and durable, making it ideal for use in hundreds of applications in medical facilities where it helps reduce and prevent healthcare-associated infections. We’ve also written about PVC being used as an effective barrier to protect doctors and nurses from highly contagious diseases like Ebola and now COVID-19. The simple fact is that PVC is indispensable to modern medical care.

What’s more, vinyl manufacturers have stepped up to the challenge and are helping our communities, our country, and the world during this crisis. Our members are continuing to produce resin for critical medical needs like IV and blood bags, medical tubing, and hundreds of other medical applications. 

They have produced and donated hand sanitizer and material for face shields. They have transitioned their plants from making roofing materials to manufacturing PPE gowns, sewing cloth masks, and begun making sanitary patient containment units. They have  donated vinyl flooring to make temporary hospitals more sanitary, and given millions of dollars to COVID-19 treatment and recovery efforts. We’re curious what HCWH has been doing other than push its baseless, anti-chemical agenda. 

It seems HCWH would rather have front line workers rely on untested equipment void of the one proven material that can serve as an impenetrable shield to minimize the spread of infection. Even a pandemic won’t stop HCWH from continuing to deceive the public about vinyl material.   

For years we have stated HCWH is an ideologically-entrenched opponent of PVC whose views lack scientific credibility. Today we don’t need to repeat it; their actions speak for themselves.

Don’t Be Misled by That “Red List” You Saw on Social Media

At some point you may have come across a so-called activist “red list.” The idea behind these fear pieces is pretty simple: condense sensational and unsupported science on products people use every day, present it as credible research to the public, reject the corpus of sound research that disputes their desired narrative on thin pretenses, and incite unnecessary alarm by claiming the products should be avoided at all costs.  

“Red lists” are grossly misleading. They make it hard for consumers to make informed choices. “Red lists” – sometimes called ‘restricted substance lists’ – lump together materials with drastically different risk profiles, and treat them exactly the same. In this one, they place the same amount of importance on avoiding phthalates as lead. Here’s the problem: lead has well known, well documented, and scientifically proven health risks and virtually any exposure at all is dangerous; phthalates, on the other hand, have been safely used for more than 50 years and there is no consensus among researchers and scientists that real world exposure to phthalates poses any human health risks. Despite these significant differences, this “red list” treats both materials the same.

Often citing the “precautionary principle”, the activist organizations that push “red lists” assume consumers aren’t sophisticated or educated enough to understand these distinctions, so they obfuscate and act as though the listed substances or materials  should all be avoided.

Another problem with “red lists” is that they often advise consumers against products that are perfectly safe for their intended use. They don’t take into consideration the issues of real world exposure and risk levels. Phthalates are applicable here as well.  The EPA has established a reference dose for safe exposure to various phthalates used for making products from cables to cosmetics. All of the exposure from these phthalates that a person is likely to experience in real-world scenarios is well below that safe level. Yet, the red-listers still say that you should avoid them altogether. Either the activists think you’re incapable of understanding the science, or else they’re pushing their own agenda by deliberately confusing the issue.

Which brings us to the central problem with “red lists.” They’re used by agenda-driven activists to carry out crusades against materials they deem unsafe based on misleading generalizations and oversimplified views of hazards to shape the purchasing habits of consumers. These organizations cite each other to create a guise of credibility despite failing to warn consumers about legitimately dangerous materials -- like crystalline silica -- while they profit from attacking and smearing safe materials used to produce rigid and flexible vinyl products. 

Although “red lists,” purport to be about a benefit to consumers, ultimately, they end up hurting consumers and the planet far more than they help. Ironically, the precautionary principle -- on which these lists claim to be based -- would suggest that these lists should not be trusted unless they are fully vetted and validated to provide benefit across the major indicators of human and climate health.

EWG’s Fiction on PVC Rug Backings

We’ve stated before how the Environmental Working Group (EWG) consistently promotes misinformation about the safety of PVC products. But when their friends at The Washington Post blindly promote EWG’s agenda, and fail to address whether the  scientific rigor of EWG’s studies have any credibility, they perpetuate distorted claims and deceptive statements about the material and mislead the public. 

PVC-backed rugs “can off-gas and contain other harmful chemicals such as phthalates,” The Washington Post writes, a claim it attributes (along with a recommendation to use natural rubber-backed carpet) to EWG “senior scientist” Tasha Stoiber. 

Fact: EWG’s argument is not backed by any mainstream consensus among researchers and scientists. Which is likely why EWG fails to provide a source to back up their claim. Had the Washington Post asked us to comment, we would have pointed out that several peer-reviewed studies show PVC poses no known human health concerns. Which is why manufacturers at the forefront of the sustainability movement prefer PVC. 

We also would have pointed out that a recent study from the State of California found that rubber flooring -- which can contain similar components to the rubber rug backing that EWG recommends -- “emit[s] a myriad” of volatile organic compounds. EWG hasn’t shown any analysis of the VOCs emitted by rubber backed rugs. Which is to say nothing of the noxious smell of new rubber. 

That information would have been useful for readers. 

We hope the Washington Post and EWG will do better in the future. So long as they fail to do so, we will hold them accountable to ensure the public has the facts. 

C&EN Promotes Biased Research

A recent article in Chemical & Engineering News (C&EN) makes misleading claims about the effects of vinyl flooring on human health.  What’s more, it’s based on a flawed, agenda-driven study from a researcher with a track record of anti-PVC bias. We pointed this out to C&EN and they asked us to submit a letter to the editor to express our concerns. We did so, but they elected not to publish it. Here’s the letter we submitted, in full: 

When an article makes overbroad claims, cites biased researchers, and misstates basic facts, readers are the ones who lose. 

In “Chemists move indoors to measure the air quality in our homes” Celia Arnaud makes several concerning and misleading claims about vinyl flooring and phthalates. She claims that “understanding exposure and how various compounds affect human health is still a long way off.” This is patently false when it comes to phthalates. As far back as 2007, the European Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) published a detailed opinion on risk assessment of indoor air quality concluding that it “does not find consistent scientific evidence which indicate[s] that phthalates should be high concern chemicals in indoor air.” Similar indoor air assessments have since been published over the years, including by Health Canada in 2015 and in South Korean children from 2011. None of the studies have identified any phthalate-related concern with indoor air.

What’s more, the article bases its criticism of phthalates almost entirely on the work of Dr. Heather Stapleton who has a long record of collaboration with anti-vinyl activist organizations. Furthermore, the research cited in the article contains several flaws. The fact remains, even the greatest possible exposures found within Dr. Stapleton’s research were at least 25 times below the safe level as determined by the U.S. EPA. This alone undercuts the conclusions she makes; not to mention the many other methodological and scientific flaws found in the study. 

We appreciate the editors of C&EN for correcting several erroneous claims in the original version of the article. Still, the questionable source Ms. Arnaud relies upon for her story, and the misguided statements she makes, perpetuate distortions about vinyl flooring that misrepresent the facts and fail the interests of C&EN readers. 

Outlets like C&EN have a duty to evaluate the credibility of the ‘experts’ whose work they promote, so that readers can make informed assessments about the information presented to them. When they abdicate that responsibility, the public has a right to know. 

UPDATED: Environmental Health News Fails Readers on Study Coverage

Everyone, including journalists and news outlets, makes mistakes from time to time. Most of us are eager to correct errors or inaccuracies when they are pointed out to us. 

When an article or op-ed contains a blatant factual inaccuracy, we ask the outlet that published the piece to take action to correct the record, and do so publicly. Many of them do.  But Environmental Health News (EHN) failed to meet even the lowest bar when we pointed out an error in a recent opinion piece. 

Here’s what happened: 

A few months ago, EHN published an op-ed from a chemistry student at Carnegie Mellon University claiming that children were exposed to dangerous levels of phthalates by eating Kraft Mac & Cheese. There was just one problem. The student had overestimated the level exposure by at least 1000%. He claimed that one serving would exceed the EPA’s reference dose. The truth is that a child would have to consume 15 servings, or two family-size boxes, per day over a lifetime of 70 years, to exceed the EPA’s reference dose.

We contacted Professor Linda A Peteanu, Chair of the Department of Chemistry at Carnegie Mellon University with a letter detailing the mistakes. And, after contacting the School, we contacted Brian Bienkowski, the Senior Editor of Environmental Health News to inform him of the errors in both the op-eds published by EHN and in the underlying research. 

Unfortunately, Mr. Bienkowski ignored our letter and shirked his journalistic responsibility to ensure that readers have the facts.

Of course, we understand that students, especially those studying highly technical subjects, can make mistakes or miscalculations. But it’s baffling that a publication like EHN, which claims to be “dedicated to driving science into public discussion,” would print these false claims at face-value without any significant scrutiny, and subsequently dismiss our attempts to ensure the public has the accurate facts. 

It would be a disservice to readers if an agenda-driven bias against phthalates of any kind allowed this piece to go forward and ignore any attempt to correct the record. 

But if EHN won’t act in the interests of its readers, we will.

***

UPDATE: After we published this blog post, Mr. Bienkowski responded to our correction request and refused to make any correction to the op-eds in question. Astonishingly, Mr. Bienkowski seems to believe that he, as editor, doesn’t not have any responsibility to ensure that fundamental facts are correct in “opinion” pieces. The New York Times and the Washington Post both agree that fact-checking standards should apply to opinion pieces. EHN claims to be “dedicated to driving science into public discussion,” but it seems they are really only dedicated to driving their own agenda. Even if it means promoting demonstrably false, junk science.

PVC Yoga Mats: The Healthy, Sustainable Choice

Recently, we’ve noticed a disturbing trend: activists and media outlets are promoting misinformation about PVC in yoga mats. Several publications, including the Los Angeles Times and HuffPost, have attacked PVC yoga mats based on shoddy science and misleading claims. Meanwhile, they have also promoted alternative materials without serious examination of the potential downsides of their durability, safety, effectiveness, and cleanliness. If media outlets are going to continue to ignore the facts on this issue, we have an obligation to set the record straight.

Activists and their media allies wrongly claim that PVC yoga mats can pose a health risk to those who use them. HuffPost claims that PVC is “highly toxic” but the truth is that PVC is an inert material which has been rigorously studied for decades and has been used safely in consumer and commercial products for more than 50 years. 

The LA Times went even further, claiming that PVC was classified as a carcinogen by the World Health Organization. They removed that claim when we pointed out to them that it was false and the source they provided was actually referring to a completely different compound. PVC yoga mats do not pose any risk of harm to human health and this kind of fear mongering is simply irresponsible.

Additionally, both articles make dubious claims about the recyclability of PVC. Approximately 146 million pounds of consumer vinyl products are recycled annually. Since 2014, there has been a 40 percent increase in post-consumer PVC recycling.

And what about those alternative materials touted by these articles? In general, many of the materials they recommend may not be as durable or easy to clean, meaning that there is a very real possibility that they could result in more waste or a buildup of potentially harmful bacteria on the mats. But it gets worse the more you boil down to the specific issues with each material. Cork often contains significant amounts of methylene chloride, a highly toxic extractable, which is a probable human carcinogen. And “biodegradable natural tree rubber” does not decompose easily or quickly. In fact, it can take 50-80 years for rubber to decompose naturally. 

It’s unfortunate when outlets like the LA Times and Huffpost promote unfounded and alarmist activist claims rather than giving their readers a balanced view. The plain truth is that PVC yoga mats are durable, safe, easy to clean, and affordable for users. It’s no wonder PVC yoga mats are widely considered to be one of the most resilient and innovative options available on the market today.

National Geographic’s Advice on PVC in Medical Care is Dangerous

A recent article in National Geographic asks the question, “can medical care exist without plastic?” – but instead of presenting a fact-based analysis of this important topic, author Sarah Gibbens irresponsibly answers her own question by propagating the same false claims that entrenched, agenda-driven opponents of the material have advanced for years. 

Only in this case, if hospitals followed National Geographic’s misguided information and eliminated plastic from medical care settings, there could be serious life or death consequences. Plastic, specifically PVC, is absolutely necessary in medical care, as it has proven itself to be an invaluable material in hospital settings. 

A growing problem in the medical field is healthcare-associated infections, which occur when a patient is being treated for one illness and acquires an additional infection in the process. Making matters more complicated, many bacteria are developing resistance to existing antibiotics. 

PVC, due to its versatile applications, is crucial in helping to reduce and prevent healthcare-associated infections. PVC-based vinyl flooring and wall coverings can be easily washed and withstand strong disinfectants. Because PVC is an effective barrier, it can help minimize the spread of even the most infectious diseases. PVC is a common material used in the upholstery of furniture in waiting rooms and patient rooms as well, since it is more durable and easier to clean than other materials. 

Doctors on the front lines battling some of the most virulent diseases in the world rely on PVC -- because it does the job. It was, and continues to be, critical in helping prevent the spread of Ebola, by protecting the medical professionals and caregivers combating the deadly disease the field. There simply isn’t another material that can deliver the same level of safety, durability, and protection.

Opponents of PVC argue that alternatives should replace PVC in hospitals. But no other material rivals PVC’s capabilities. Do we really want to use unproven materials in these settings, where people’s lives are on the line, simply because agenda-driven constituencies say we should?

PVC opponents have questioned the recyclability of PVC used in healthcare. The fact is, much of the PVC used in medical care can be recycled. Nonetheless, hospitals require single-use materials of all types because they help prevent the spread of disease and infection. Reusable materials are not safe in certain medical applications given the potential risk of contamination, and that’s especially true when it comes to administering blood to patients. When PVC blood bags replaced glass bottles, they revolutionized the way in which blood is given to those who need it because of their safety, durability, portability, and reliability. While not safe for reuse or recycling today, efforts are underway to develop chemical recycling technologies to return these contaminated products to safe use while reducing the overall environmental impact.

It’s concerning that National Geographic chooses to promote an agenda-driven viewpoint instead of presenting a balanced analysis based on sound science on this topic and others. We have been forced to correct the record on inaccurate claims made by National Geographic, including a previous article by this same reporter. 

The simple fact is that PVC is vital to modern healthcare – and alternative materials are unproven, unreliable, too risky – and unnecessary. 

MORE: PVC in Medical Care: Innovation That Saves Lives

MORE: Does it really make sense to develop PVC-free materials in medical care?

Duke Researcher Misleads on Vinyl Flooring

Dr. Heather Stapleton’s recent study on vinyl flooring uses flawed methodology to draw a host of misleading conclusions. Those in the press who reflexively publicize her findings -- and fail to include important facts and context to help the public decide whether her claims are scientifically reliable -- do a disservice to readers everywhere.

Collaboration with Anti-Vinyl Organizations

Dr. Stapleton is not an independent authority on this issue.  She has collaborated with the Environmental Working Group (EWG) -- a group that has been ideologically opposed to vinyl flooring for years. EWG has called vinyl flooring “the worst flooring choice,” and the group’s distortions about vinyl material have been publicly corrected in the past. 

What’s more, Dr. Stapleton’s laboratory, The Stapleton Lab, is housed within Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment -- which partners with other organizations that have engaged in decades-long campaigns to deceive the public about vinyl. Specifically, it runs an affiliated internship program with Greenpeace, which actively campaigns against PVC material. Other internship partners include EWG and Earthjustice, another staunch opponent of the PVC industry.  

Combined, these relationships raise serious questions with respect to Dr. Stapleton’s independence on this important subject. 

Problems With Dr. Stapleton’s Study

Her research focuses on a specific phthalate called benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), which Dr. Stapleton claims causes health issues in children exposed to vinyl flooring in their homes. Here’s the problem: very little vinyl flooring sold in the United States today contains BBP. 

What’s more, her research relies on observational data by individuals who are not trained experts in distinguishing different flooring material types to determine whether, or how much, vinyl flooring was present in the homes of test subjects. And as any respected researcher knows, survey data is widely considered to be an unreliable data source. Notably, it is impossible for Dr. Stapleton to confirm that the vinyl flooring in the homes of the subjects in her study even contained BBP -- and verifying that is essential to the study’s overall credibility.  And Dr. Stapleton’s study failed to consider that the presence of BBP could come from a number of sources. After all, a study is only as good as its methodology. 

She also fails to note that no credible science exists anywhere claiming a connection between phthalate exposure and impacts to human health.  

Even more egregious, Dr. Stapleton’s own study shows that the levels of BBP that the children were exposed to were far too low to be of concern. According to her paper, even the greatest possible exposures were at least 25 times below the safe level as determined by the U.S. EPA. In other words, none of the children profiled in this study were in danger of exposure-related health concerns. There is simply no evidence in this study that children living in homes with vinyl flooring are at any greater risk than children living in homes with no vinyl flooring.

Alarmist findings may be attractive for media outlets to cover. But when the press blindly cover studies that rely on unscientific methods -- and fail to question their conclusions or provide important context regarding the author’s independence or credibility -- the public loses.  Readers can only make informed judgments when they have access to all of the facts. 

And a flawed study by an agenda-driven researcher does not change what years of credible science and real world use has proven -- vinyl flooring remains one of the safest, most reliable products on the market today.