« September 2005 | Main | July 2008 »
October 21, 2005
Science magazine adds to Swan study woes
In the Oct 21 issue of Science Magazine, one of the world’s most prestigious scientific journals, Jocelyn Kaiser did her homework and some good old-fashioned reporting on the Swan study and the faults the government DEHP review panel found in it (see my previous blog below). A telling line about the Swan research comes from panel member Robert Chapin, a toxicologist from Pfizer, who wondered to Ms. Kaiser, “Is this just noise?” Kim Boekelheide of Brown University added, “It makes everybody scratch their head.”
A link to a summary is below. Subscribers may see the full story by going to Science’s Web site.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/310/5747/422a.
Posted by Marian at 5:13 PM | Comments (0)
October 18, 2005
More criticism of Swan study
The Statistical Assessment Service, which has critiqued the Swan study before, has done some more reporting
on the study's flaws. Here's a link to its story.
http://www.stats.org/stories/NIH%20Panel_Swan_oct17_05.htm
Posted by Marian at 6:01 PM | Comments (0)
October 14, 2005
USPIRG Tricks Some Media
840,000. That’s a big number. Unless it’s 840,000 parts per billion. That is a very teeny amount. Point 084 per cent, to be exact.
And that’s just one example of what the much publicized USPIRG report on chemicals in baby items says about phthalates. As far as phthalates go, the report practically says nothing. It says it found 840,000 parts per billion of the phthalate called DEHP in a baby book. Sounds like a lot, doesn’t it? But if you do the math, it amounts to almost nothing.
In fact, the amount of any of the phthalates that PIRG reported would provide, in and of themselves, no flexibility to a vinyl product. The levels are so low that I wonder whether they are contamination or a background level. Also, three of the phthalates that PIRG includes are not used in vinyl toys.
Lots of local TV and radio stations fell for what seemed like a story. US PIRG is needlessly alarming parents.
Posted by Marian at 4:28 PM | Comments (0)
October 5, 2005
About That Wall Street Journal Article
Well, the long awaited WSJ article on phthalates was published today. I have to say, that I was pleasantly surprised on how much ink Peter Waldman gave me. But, I am concerned that the reader is left with the impression that much is not known about phthalates. Like many other journalists Mr. Waldman overstates the impact on infant genitalia, when the fact is that Dr. Swan did not claim such effects as her primary finding. In fact, she said there were no frank malformations, or gross abnormalities. Because we lack the specific expertise on the Panel, the article written by Dr. Swan is now being reviewed by an outside team comprising an MD, epidemiologist and developmental toxicologist. This will help the Panel –and the public and media -- understand the basis of the assertions being made.
(For a critique of the article, see http://stats.org/record.jsp?type=news&ID=515.)
I’ve watched the Phthalate Esters Panel members fund nearly $20 million of research in the 15 years I’ve managed the group. The group will continue to fund research because we really want to maximize our understanding of phthalates. The WSJ article highlights a few pieces of very speculative research, but doesn’t tally up the huge number of good solid research studies. Peter put in tons of research into the writing of this article; I spent several hours talking and e-mailing him. I guess the bottom line is that reasonable doesn’t make a front page story; heightening fears better serves that purpose.
I really wish I could get regular folks to understand a few simple things:
Phthalates are among the best studied family of chemicals in use today. Many of those studies suggest that health effects seen in rodents are irrelevant to humans.
All serious and thorough governmental reviews of phthalates have shown them to be safe for use at current levels of exposure. The government’s own data show that human exposure of the general population to phthalates is far below the levels that cause problems in rodents.
Perhaps most important, the new studies have not undergone scientific scrutiny. They have not been rigorously analyzed nor have they been replicated.
When I weigh this with over 50 years of safety studies, I’ve got to tell you, I’m personally comfortable about using phthalate containing products. I would also not hesitate to allow the people I care about and love to use products containing them.
Posted by Marian at 2:06 PM | Comments (2)