« April 2006 | Main | July 2008 »
May 16, 2006
Let's be clear about those European risk assessments!
As we previously reported to you in an April 20th blog and in a more extensive Panel statement, the European Union recently disagreed with itself and declared "no concern" for current uses of three phthalates. That is, risk assessments -- government-sponsored scientific reviews – of DBP, DINP, and DIDP concluded there was no concern for their traditional uses in consumer products. Yet all three phthalates have been banned or restricted in their use through a legislative ban voted by the EU political system.
Since then, some news stories have misinterpreted the risk assessments. Instead of correctly reporting that the risk assessments concluded there is no concern for current uses of these phthalates, some stories have corrupted this to mean that there are no more concerns now that the bans and restrictions are in place. This is a wrong reading of the risk assessments. Let's be clear on this:
- The risk assessments do not take the legislative restrictions or bans into account in their conclusions.
- And, they disagree with the DBP ban from cosmetics and the restrictions on the use DINP in toys.
In fact, the DINP risk assessment assumed that all vinyl toys are made with DINP. It also assumed the highest rate of migration, and that children mouth vinyl toys for an average three hours a day, which is far higher than found in actual mouthing tests. Even with these extreme scenarios, the risk assessment summary concluded that "end products containing DINP (clothing, building materials, toys and baby equipment) and the sources of exposure (car and public transport interiors, food and food packaging) are unlikely to pose a risk for consumers (adults, infants and newborns) following inhalation, skin contact and ingestion."
The DBP assessment says (on page 108) that there is "no concern for consumers using nail polish containing DBP." That flat statement does not lend itself to misinterpretation. It may be that some reporters were confused by references in the reports to "further" risk reduction measures, thinking that that phrase signals incorporation of the bans into the risk assessment conclusions. Wrong. The measures referred to are those that may already have been taken by regulators, not politicians.
Posted by Marian at 11:33 AM | Comments (0)
May 11, 2006
A compliment for phthalates from an unlikely source
A new report by the Environmental Working Group, released for the purpose of lobbying for anti-chemical legislation in California, contains the following information:
“The estimated age by which a daughter will purge 99 percent of the inherited pollution found in this study ranges from one day for phthalate plasticizers…to longer than a lifetime, 166 years, for lead.”
Huh??? For anyone who bothers to read far enough into the EWG document, this line is going to come as a bit of a shock, because up to that point, the prose heavily implies that plasticizers linger in the human body and build up over time. The reality is, as EWG rather quietly concedes, they do not! In whatever way a person takes in some level of phthalate, it is just passing through. The human body is very efficient at breaking the molecules down and excreting them. A scientist would say, bioaccumulation is not a concern with phthalates. The same holds true for the environment: phthalates do not persist in water, soil and air; they break down quite readily under bacterial action and light. To talk like a scientist again, that is why phthalates routinely are not classified as “PBT” – persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic. Thanks to EWG for getting this right.
Posted by Marian at 3:44 PM | Comments (0)
May 9, 2006
Increase in reproductive defects? Read on.
It has been the conventional wisdom among pressure groups for years: birth defects in the reproductive systems of newborns, particularly boys, are on the rise. And the blame is placed on chemicals, primarily pesticides. But is the conventional wisdom right?
Now science writer Ron Bailey has written an article for reason.com, an offshoot of Reason Magazine, revealing that the data give little support to the thesis. Mr. Bailey notes that one recent study shows a slight rise -- but a number of others show no such increase. And he points out one especially interesting correlation – in a couple of studies, an increase in defects was linked to changing lifestyle decisions – specifically, the increasingly popular decision to have children later in life. The risks of some congenital disorders are strongly linked to maternal age.
In the course of the article, Bailey mentions Shanna Swan’s study of phthalates and baby boys, but mostly to poke some fun at her attempts to defend the quality of her study, which has been roundly criticized by the scientific community. Bailey’s sprightly prose is an easy read – and an illuminating one. You will find it at:
http://www.reason.com/rb/rb050506.shtml.
Posted by Marian at 11:48 AM | Comments (0)