The FDA States Phthalates are Safe, But Activists Continue to Deny the Science

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has declared phthalates used in food packaging are safe, but that hasn't stopped agenda-driven NGOs from continued attempts to mislead the public. Activists are doubling down on unscientific criticisms of the plastics used in commercial products, including food packaging. Unfortunately, they show no signs of curbing those criticisms.

On May 20, 2022, the FDA denied a petition from several environmental groups that contained a number of scientifically-unsupported accusations about phthalates and food packaging. The FDA stood firm in its findings, noting:

“ … the petition does not contain sufficient data to support finding that there is no longer a reasonable certainty of no harm from the currently approved uses.

“….based on the information currently available to FDA, we do not have a basis to conclude that dietary exposure levels from approved ortho-phthalates exceed a safe level...” (Source: Natural Resources Defense Council, et al.; Denial of Food Additive Petition; Denial Without Prejudice of Food Additive Petition)

Despite the FDA's declarative statements – and the absence of credible studies or evidence to support the petition’s claims – a group of agenda-driven phthalate opponents continue to insinuate that there is harm or risk from phthalates in food packaging. Earth Justice, Center for Environmental Health, and Environmental Defense Fund have made such assertions, in attempts to continue with their misleading narratives around the safety of ortho-phthalates, used in hundreds of common vinyl (PVC) products for decades.

But the real damage is when consumer-focused news outlets amplify activist claims without citing evidence or presenting fact-based information. Sources such as Eat This, Not That! want readers to believe they provide “accurate, timely, informative, and actionable content,” yet in the same breath, they source outdated news articles and advance only biased and uninformed views of phthalate opponents.

After years of comprehensive review, the FDA made its decision and spoke clearly on this matter. Rather than accept the FDA’s decision and move on, deep-pocketed activist groups have chosen to perpetuate distortions and junk science.

At Vinyl Verified, we deal with facts. And the facts are these: regulators in Europe and Australia have found no compelling evidence that phthalates used in food packaging harm human health. Now, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration has reached an equivalent safety conclusion.

Cities Break From Iron Pipes, Opting for More Reliable PVC Pipe

Our country’s iron pipes are crumbling — and more and more cities are turning to PVC pipes to replace their aging, outdated water systems.

Why? PVC pipes offer several advantages: longevity, durability – and strong value for U.S. taxpayers.

Cities are making the switch because PVC pipes are corrosion-resistant and designed to be in service decades longer than iron pipes. Utah State University researchers evaluated a cross-section of America’s existing water infrastructure systems and found PVC pipes to be the most durable option:

A major finding of the study is that PVC pipe has the lowest overall failure rate when compared to cast iron, ductile iron, concrete, steel and asbestos cement pipes. Another major finding is that corrosion is a major cause of water main breaks.

When it comes to taxpayer value, PVC pipe is unmatched. In Pleasanton, California, ductile iron pipe was found to cost 70 percent more than PVC pipe during a water line replacement project. In Tryon, North Carolina, taxpayers saved an estimated 30% by replacing their water lines with PVC pipe. In Burton, Michigan, PVC is projected to save taxpayers $2.2 million.

PVC pipe is designed to be in service for over 100 years. Because of its longevity, PVC pipe is a more sustainable material, as it requires fewer repairs and replacements over its lifetime. What’s more, its strength and durability result in fewer ruptures, minimizing loss of treated water.

The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that across the country, a water main breaks every two minutes, losing roughly six billion gallons of treated water every day.

With regard to safety, since 1988, NSF International has maintained authorization for the use of PVC pipe in drinking water systems. The public can have confidence that the water they drink from PVC pipe systems is clean and safe.

On the other hand, iron pipes are susceptible to tuberculation, a form of internal corrosion and biofilm contamination, that can lead to leaks, bursts, and cracks. The National Academy of Sciences has even conducted a review that says legacy iron pipe materials may “contribute to Legionella growth in hot-water heaters.” As we see every day across the nation, especially during the cold winter months, aging iron pipe breaks can cause serious public health issues, including boiled water advisories, flooding, traffic congestion delaying the arrival of First Responders, among many other concerns.

Which cities are switching to PVC pipes?

A quick scan of public sources over the past two years found 45 instances where U.S. cities and townships have made the switch to PVC pipe. These regions have recognized that PVC pipe is the most durable, cost-efficient material available, offering the best value for taxpayers.

Trusting the process on EPA’s PVC petition consent decree

The US Environmental Protection Agency has agreed to a proposed timeline to assess alarmist claims about discarded PVC alleged by The Center for Biological Diversity. Vinyl Verified will follow this process closely — and set the record straight to ensure the facts prevail.

The innovation of PVC has transformed our world. It preserves blood longer and protects those on the front line who depend on PVC-made personal protective equipment (PPE) to keep them safe. It has revolutionized how medical care is administered, saving countless lives due to its material attributes that can withstand harsh disinfectants and reduce the spread of deadly infection. It delivers safe, clean drinking water to people around the globe. And it’s found in many of the products we rely on each and every day that make our lives better — from our televisions, computers, flooring, siding, windows, fabrics, car interiors. ... The list goes on.

The Center for Biological Diversity is irresponsibly advocating for the EPA to regulate discarded PVC. The organization continues to ignore the facts and vast scientific literature that shows the material is safe and sustainably managed. The Vinyl Institute (VI) responded to the recent EPA proposed consent decree, and VI’s President and CEO, Ned Monroe, issued this statement:

“The Vinyl Institute supports a timely EPA review process. The Vinyl Institute will continue to cooperate with EPA staff to provide science-based information on petitions regarding PVC. Government health and safety agencies worldwide have studied PVC and recognize the importance of products such as PVC pipe that delivers clean drinking water and landfill liners that prevent groundwater contamination. If the EPA follows the science, as we expect they will, CBD’s petition will be denied.”

Please visit Vinyl Verified and follow us on Twitter for the latest developments.

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.