Healthy Building Network deceives on PVC roofing membranes

If you’re familiar with our work here at Vinyl Verified you’re likely aware the Healthy Building Network (HBN) has a prolific history of distorting the facts about polyvinyl chloride (PVC). We’ve had to correct them multiple times in this forum to ensure readers have accurate information. True to form, HBN recently published a ranking on roofing membranes that contains a host of flawed statements and bias-driven conclusions regarding PVC. We’ll break them down one by one …

HBN’s ranking system is entirely arbitrary.

HBN claims it “reviewed the chemicals and materials” in the roofing membranes they analyzed to form the basis of their recommendations. A rough translation of this approach is that HBN's own entrenched bias and agenda-driven outlook drove their ranking of the membranes in their story. It’s equivalent to them saying, “we know what’s best so trust us – we’re the experts.” Sorry, HBN: your word alone doesn’t pass the red face test.

HBN’s claims aren’t based on credible science.

HBN justifies ranking one membrane over others in their report by saying “fewer hazardous chemicals are required to make it.'' But any real scientist knows this has no bearing on the safety of the end product. Highly regulated chemicals are used to make thousands of consumer products where exposure concerns are minimal and present no human health risk. It’s a false premise to base the safety of roofing membranes on such flawed methodology.

HBN promotes old, outdated claims about PVC to attack its use in roofing membranes.

HBN opposes PVC membranes citing “hazardous materials used and released during raw material manufacturing.” Yet there have been no known workplace exposure incidents related to vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) used to make PVC since the 1970s due to the strong efforts by the PVC industry to comply with the rules and regulations that govern production.

What’s more, EPA’s own data confirms that VCM emissions to air & water have declined 86% since 1987 while vinyl resin production has increased 91% during the same time period. Emissions to air and water from ethylene dichloride (EDC) used to make VCM have declined by an even greater margin (97%) since 1987.

HBN further misleads by claiming phthalates leach from PVC (this time from roofing membranes). Credible research, however, proves that phthalates are held within the structure of PVC products – and do not leach under normal use and conditions.

Phthalates in PVC roofing membranes also received a Safe Use Determination from one of the toughest regulatory agencies in the nation – the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

HBN doesn’t want you to know any of this. They still want you to think it’s 1970 where PVC manufacturers have done nothing to change their processes over the past 50 years.

But that doesn’t change the fact that the industry has taken measurable strides to improve manufacturing, protect the environment and surrounding communities, and ensure the safety of the dedicated men and women who work at U.S. PVC facilities.

HBN ranks PVC above other roofing membrane alternatives – yet recommends it should be avoided at all costs.

For those still in need of more proof that HBN has an anti-PVC agenda, in their report they claim PVC is less hazardous than built-up roofing (BUR) – but they rationalize the continued use of BUR while recommending PVC be avoided entirely. This only validates HBN’s entrenched bias and well documented ideological opposition to everything PVC.

HBN’s long-standing agenda against PVC is precisely why the organization cannot be trusted as an independent or credible source of information about PVC.

Verywell Health Ignores Attempt to Correct False / Misleading Statements About PVC

Verywell Health recently published a story on phthalates containing a number of false and misleading claims. We reached out to the editors at Verywell and asked them to correct these errors – or remove the article entirely – to avoid misinforming readers. Regrettably, they ignored our request. To ensure the public has the facts, we’re publishing the information we sent to Verywell here:

---

I am writing on behalf of The Vinyl Institute in response to a deeply flawed story (“Are Phthalates in Plastic Safe,” 2.2.22) by Lana Barhum in Verywell containing demonstrably false information about phthalates and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). This story makes a number of distorted claims that demand the swift removal of this article from a website under dotdash’s portfolio of websites. If you are not the editor for this site, I’d appreciate it if you would forward it to the appropriate person. I’ve also sent our concerns to Dr. Rochelle Langford Collins the day it was published.

I’ll be specific and highlight just a few of the story’s errors here:

“PVC is the most used plasticizer in the world”: This false statement by the author reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of what PVC material is, and how it’s made. PVC is not a plasticizer – plasticizers are materials that are added to certain PVC compounds that are converted into flexible products.

Phthalates are not used to make PVC: Not all PVC contains phthalates, as the reporter claims. In fact, not even all of the flexible PVC market uses some version of a phthalate. There are dozens of different chemistries used as plasticizer additives that make certain PVC products flexible. PVC is inherently rigid, and many products – plumbing pipes, vinyl siding, window frames as examples – do not contain plasticizers. Even thin calendared PVC used often to protect pharmaceutical products and other goods is bendable, but does not use plasticizer chemistry. Shower curtains and electrical cables etc., are examples of PVC where plasticizers have been added to allow the products to bend easily.

Most toy manufacturers no longer use phthalates: The vast majority of toy manufacturers shifted away from using the same phthalates they once used in children’s products nearly 15 years ago. These plasticizers have not been allowed in toys sold in Europe since 2005 and in the U.S. since 2008. To state, as the author does, that phthalates “are used” in soft plastic teethers and baby toys “and can be hazardous to a baby’s health” deceives readers, as most toy manufacturers moved to non-phthalate plasticizers well over a decade ago.

Personal care products do not contain high amounts of phthalates: The author makes the false claim that “beauty and skin care products, including shampoos, perfumes, hair sprays, and cosmetics, can contain high amounts of phthalates.” It is highly unlikely to find phthalates such as BBP or DIDP in personal care products. And the phthalate DEP is generally used as a fragrance carrier only in extremely small amounts.

The author draws incomplete study conclusions and makes statements that are scientifically unsupported: The Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology study the author references found that some plasticizers could be detected in a higher percent of the fast foods tested -- but at very low levels (below 100 parts per million). Failure by the author to note this important qualifying fact leaves readers with a false impression of the study’s findings. And the author offers no evidence to support her claim that "phthalate free" packaging may not necessarily be free of all phthalates.

I urge strongly that you remove this story immediately from your website so that readers are not further misled.

Sincerely,
Susan Wade
Vice President of Marketing and Communications
The Vinyl Institute

What EWG Didn’t Include in Their Vinyl Records Story

Recently, a reporter and senior advisor for the Environmental Working Group reached out with some questions about the sustainability of vinyl records. While we’ve been critical of EWG’s reporting over the years, we were encouraged by their willingness to seek our input for their story. Regrettably, they didn’t include our comments in the final piece. We reached out to ask why none of our quotes made the article, but we didn’t get a response.

We think it’s important that the public have access to both sides of a debate, so that readers may draw their own conclusions based on a complete presentation of the facts. So we’re publishing the information we provided EWG here. Below you will find the questions the reporter posed, along with our responses:

---

Considering that records are [a] small slice of overall PVC use, why does your organization engage on the issue of vinyl record production? 

Through the Vinyl Sustainability Council (VSC), our organization engages with the entire vinyl value chain, including the raw material producers, product manufacturers, retailers, recyclers and user groups. We’re happy to see the resurgence in interest in vinyl records as a durable, value-added approach to musical expression and collection. The VSC published a set of Guiding Principles that we are using to drive stewardship initiatives and responsible production for all vinyl products, regardless of market size.

What is your view of using PET as opposed to PVC? I’m referencing the Dutch Green Vinyl’s formula. 

It’s certainly an interesting technology, just like Compact Discs made of polycarbonate. We would advocate for consumers to have their choice of product to deliver the level of quality and function they are seeking. It’s not clear what the durability or service life expectation is, whereas PVC has a well established track record.

One of the main themes of my story is how producing 180 gram records and using “virgin vinyl” as opposed to regrinds are simply marketing techniques. Neither actually has an impact on the audio quality of the final product. Considering how the demand for PVC has shot the price up does your organization believe 180 gram records should be abandoned like Record Store Day has done? 

I can’t find the source for the claim that RSD has abandoned 180 gram records – could you please send me that? Nonetheless, we definitely advocate for the use of regrind and recycled content – not just in music media, but in large-volume markets such as building products. The processor determines how to use regrind and recycled content in a manner that allows them to continue to produce a high-quality product that meets the value expectations of the buyer.

Why do US facilities still use lead as a stabilizer even though better alternatives exist? 

We advocate for the elimination of lead stabilizers in vinyl records made in the US, even those which use foreign-made compound. US based PVC compounding facilities have not used lead stabilizers for decades. While the vast majority of the record pressing industry have moved away from lead stabilized compounds already, we are only aware of one facility remaining in the US that still uses them.

Any other thoughts on how to make the production of records more environmentally friendly? (I do reference the durability, long life, and collectability of records i.e. they don’t end up in landfills in my story) 

We would like to see the US record pressing facilities become partners with Operation Clean Sweep, making a commitment to eliminate uncontrolled release of pellets to the environment. From what I have seen thus far, record pressing facilities are already very clean.

What Doesn’t HBN Want to Ban?

Healthy Building Network is out with yet another attack on PVC that’s completely unmoored from reality. This time, they’ve issued some criteria for plastic construction products in order to gain their approval.  The problem with the expectations they’ve put forward? No viable building material can meet them.  

We thought it might be an interesting exercise to apply their unrealistic standards to non-plastic building materials that would, presumably, be substituted if HBN got their way. Here we go:

“Must be inherently low hazard.” Sounds nice. You’re probably thinking this means that we shouldn’t have hazardous materials in our homes. But what HBN is inferring here is that no “hazardous” materials can be used in the manufacturing process for any building materials, even if the finished product is completely safe. Of course, thousands of perfectly harmless products are made with materials that HBN would consider hazardous. And thousands more materials naturally contain hazardous components. Here are a few of the materials that aren’t welcome in HBN’s fantasyland based on their standard:

• Stainless Steel Pipe, Interior Finishes and Furniture - Nickel and Chromium are toxic metals used in the alloy and by definition cannot be eliminated. See ya!

• Cork Flooring - Often contains significant amounts of methylene chloride which is highly toxic and a probable human carcinogen. Bye.

• Wood Framing, Plywood and Hardwood Flooring - Wood dust is a carcinogen and respiratory irritant that becomes a potential health problem when wood particles from processes such as sanding and cutting become airborne. Chuck it.

• Ceramic Tile, Concrete, Granite, Slate, and Brick - On an hourly basis, manufacturers of these common construction products process tons of dry materials containing crystalline silica - a highly carcinogenic substance that is released when they are cut, sanded, carved, etc. Some of this dust may be fine enough to breathe deeply into your lungs and cause harm to your health. Banned.

“Must generate no waste.” We wouldn't want our building materials to be overly wasteful, of course. But HBN is (never) satisfied until they demand the absurd. 

• …Everything - We assembled a crack team, and we could not come up with a single viable construction material that can be made (or harvested) without any scrap. Let alone one that can be installed without being, say, cut to fit. Caio! 

“Must use rapidly renewable resources or waste-derived materials.” Only some species of trees, grasses, hemp, and other crops can meet this criteria. But they either fail HBN’s other criteria or perform dismally in the performance needed for modern construction. You can probably think of dozens of materials that are eliminated by this requirement, but for the sake of consistency we’ll list a few:

• Iron and Copper Pipe - Metal ore isn’t rapidly renewable. Later. 

• Hardwood Flooring - Hardwood trees do not grow quickly. Goodbye!

• Stone - Quarried stone isn’t a renewable resource. Adios.

• Concrete Foundations and Siding - Not renewable. Vanished.

These criteria would make buildings utterly unlivable by modern standards. Don’t believe us? Just imagine what would be left in your home after you take out the foundation, the framing, the siding, the insulation, the drywall, the flooring, the piping, the wiring, and even the toilet!

So, what’s HBN’s message? STOP USING MATERIALS!

What HBN’s “Plastic Building” Report Gets Wrong

Healthy Building Network (HBN) recently published a report that, unsurprisingly, gets a lot of facts wrong and presents an entirely one-sided view to promote its well established anti-PVC bias.

In its latest post, HBN tells its supporters that plastic construction products are uniquely bad for the environment while ignoring the fact that PVC and many other plastic building products are significantly more sustainable than many alternatives. HBN claims that “any comprehensive climate change plan must curb the production of plastics” used in construction. But the authors omit, for instance, lifecycle analyses showing that PVC pipes have significantly lower embodied carbon and greenhouse gas emissions than metal alternatives like iron and copper.

Ultimately, HBN’s unhinged broadside against plastic fails to ask the more important question: compared to what? HBN attacks latex paint because it’s “mostly plastic”; do they want to see a return to lead-based paint from the 1970s? They attack polystyrene insulation because it’s a kind of plastic; would they like to give up the enormous gains in energy efficiency that foam insulation has achieved? HBN criticizes the use of synthetic turf which minimizes the need for water and fertilizer and reduces carbon emissions from lawn maintenance equipment; would HBN prefer the alternative?

The fact is, avoiding plastics in construction is likely to make buildings less sustainable and more expensive. The only way to meet HBN’s unrealistic objectives is to build less, which will only lead to fewer affordable housing options for decades to come.

Like most of HBN’s pie-in-the-sky reports, this one misleads, obfuscates, and gives readers a completely backwards impression of the role of plastics in making construction greener.

We’ve come to expect this kind of fear-mongering from HBN. That’s why Vinyl Verified exists -- to ensure these baseless attacks against PVC don’t go unchallenged in the public discourse.

UPDATED: An Open Letter to the Editors of Environmental Health News on PVC

Update: When we posted this open letter, we sent a copy to the editors at Environmental Health News in hopes that they would defy our low expectations and take action to correct the original article. To our surprise, Senior Editor Brian Bienkowski at first seemed eager to engage with our critiques of the piece. He said that they would look into them and make corrections. He also expressed interest in publishing our letter. But, he never followed up, and no corrections were made. 

We will continue  to hold outlets like EHN accountable when they fail their readers.

---

Dear Mr. Fischer and Bienkowski,

We are writing to express our disappointment in your decision to publish an op-ed by Bill Walsh, a well-documented ideological opponent of PVC, that contains egregious errors and misinformation about the vinyl industry. Your readers deserve balanced and honest reporting, and that same rigor ought to be applied to the fact-checking of op-ed submissions. Mr. Walsh is entitled to his opinion, but he has no right to malign our industry with outright distortions that mislead the public. 

Mr. Walsh’s thesis rests on his contention that PVC is “unrecyclable” and that “virtually no post-consumer PVC is recycled.” Any credible expert on PVC is well aware that more than 1 billion pounds of vinyl are recycled annually in the US and Canada. Since 2014, post-consumer vinyl recycling has increased by more than 40% and the industry continues its focus on growing that capability. Further, there are more than one-hundred vinyl recyclers in the US and Canada; far from the paucity he suggests.

Mr. Walsh also claims that PVC “will never find a place in a circular economy,” but that’s a flawed assessment. PVC construction products, like pipes, have considerable sustainability advantages compared to competing materials like metal and concrete. Vinyl products – pipes, siding, flooring, etc. – also have service lives where their efficacy and reliability can be measured in decades. As Allan Sandilands, principal consultant at sustainability consultancy Resource Futures, pointed out in a recent piece in GreenBiz: “Contrary to popular belief, it’s important to acknowledge that plastics in construction are often a positive thing. Many are highly durable, long lasting and permanently installed.” 

Mr. Walsh also trots out the tired, old claims of environmental activists about the production of PVC that have been debunked again and again. U.S. PVC producers comply with local, state, and federal regulations that protect the safety of workers, communities, and the environment. In fact, the industry continues to make strides that go above and beyond these standards. 

Mr. Walsh also tries to link U.S. PVC manufacturers with the oppression of the Uighur people by the Chinese government in Xinjiang. On this count, Mr. Walsh’s assertions are beyond the pale. Mr. Walsh ought to be ashamed, as should any editor who approved this piece for publication.

As if all of this wasn’t bad enough, in the midst of Mr. Walsh’s fact-free diatribe, Environmental Health News elected to include a call for donations with the article to support “good science.” It’s quite ironic to find such a call to action contained in a piece that fails even the lowest standard of credibility. 

Normally we would ask that EHN correct these errors so that your readers have the facts. Based on our prior engagements there is a very low probability of you doing that, so we’ve published this letter on Vinyl Verified to ensure the public is not misled by the inaccuracies in Mr. Walsh’s article. 

Forbes Advisor Misleads on Vinyl Flooring

Forbes Advisor recently published a story on vinyl flooring that contains several misleading claims. We reached out to the editors but they disregarded our attempts to correct the record. We’re posted our correction request below so that readers will have all the facts.

---

Samantha Allen
Home Improvement Editor
Forbes Advisor

Dear Ms. Allen, 

Your recent article in Forbes Advisor [“The Major Pros And Cons Of Vinyl Flooring,” 09/20/21] contains some inaccurate claims regarding vinyl flooring. As a representative of the Vinyl Institute, I wanted to reach out and provide you with a few important facts.

First, your piece asserts that vinyl flooring is made with “toxic chemicals.” This characterization seriously misleads readers, as it provides no context regarding the proven safety of vinyl flooring products. The statement deceives readers by irresponsibly suggesting vinyl flooring poses a health risk, when the facts indisputably show consumers are not exposed to any of the chemicals used to make these products. In the case of vinyl, the polymerization process results in an entirely inert material, exposure to which carries no human health risks.

Additionally, the piece suggests that “off-gassed” VOCs from vinyl flooring “can adversely affect health and an indoor environment.” But the author fails to provide any reliable scientific evidence supporting the claim that vinyl flooring poses any health risks to humans. The Vinyl Institute is not aware of any peer-reviewed studies performed in accordance with widely accepted scientific standards that have been published in scientific journals. 

Moreover, hundreds of vinyl flooring products are manufactured to meet the rigorous FloorScore® Standard SCS-FS-05260 for VOC emissions. And, as you may know, FloorScore is the gold standard emissions testing program for building materials.

Any implication that exposure to vinyl flooring poses a health risk is grossly misleading to readers.

Readers turn to outlets like yours for accurate, factual reporting. Unfortunately, this piece makes several irresponsible references regarding vinyl flooring. We kindly request swift action to correct these statements to ensure the public is not misled about the safety of these products.

Claims Journal Misses the Mark on PVC

Claims Journal recently published an article about chemical exposure in structure fires that made some misleading claims about PVC. When we contacted them to correct the error, they didn’t respond. We are publishing our correction request here so that readers have the facts about this important issue.

A recent piece published by Claims Journal contains a misleading claim about PVC. It asserts that “[dioxins] are formed when products containing carbon and chlorine are burned, such as plastics containing PVC.”

This statement falsely suggests that PVC is a driving source of dioxin emissions in structure fires. This is not true. Dioxin is a byproduct of nearly every burned material. Wood, prominently found in most (if not all) homes, emits a considerable number of toxins when burned, including dioxin. This was not noted in your story.

Readers of Claims Journal expect they will be given an accurate and balanced presentation of the facts. The implication that PVC is the primary source of dioxin in a structure fire fails this standard. We ask that you remove this statement from the piece so that your readers are not further misled.