« September 2006 | Main | July 2008 »
October 20, 2006
California gets it right!
We are all for biomonitoring! That is, we think using these ultra-sensitive high-tech methods to test for the presence of really small amounts of environmental substances in people can lead to better public health by identifying trends and patterns and even possible problems. It is also good for the public psyche when it shows that exposure to a certain substance is far below the level that might cause a problem. There is nothing like some solid data to squelch a scare story. (In that vein, we note, biomonitoring tests show that average human exposure to phthalates, singly or in the aggregate, is way below government established safety levels.)
What we don't like is anyone acting as if the mere presence of chemicals in us is by itself evidence of any current or future health effect. Those bent on changing the way chemicals are regulated in this country, and lawyers who want to sue everybody for everything, use the potential benefits of biomonitoring data to try to scare us into worrying that any level of chemicals in us will cause illness.
That's the way California's biomonitoring bill was originally written. But what people often don't realize is that the US and California's chemical laws and regulations are among the strongest anywhere. There is an all around web of interlinking laws, rules and regulations that manufacturers follow to protect us from getting over-exposed. Far from imitating the science-based methodology used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has had a nationwide biomonitoring program in place for years, the original California bill read more like the manifesto of those trying to scare us, rather than a proposed law based on a foundation of science and facts.
Fortunately, wiser and calmer heads prevailed. Gov., Schwarzenegger vetoed last year's version, saying that any biomonitoring program "must be built on a solid scientific foundation." Because this new California program will be built on a firm foundation of science it should produce meaningful data in a way that we can all understand and have confidence in.
Posted by Marian at 8:14 AM | Comments (0)
October 5, 2006
Check it out!
Two associate professors of medicine at Dartmouth Medical School have published a study of 187 print and TV science stories that were based on research presented at scientific meetings. According to an analysis by the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), the two professors find that reporters (or their editors) too often leave out “details” on the scientific reports that can be essential to a reader’s ability to evaluate them. ACSH goes on to provide a reader’s checklist for help in deciding whether a health–related story is yet another thing for us to worry about, or just another scare story. “Using a critical eye when reading or viewing health-related news stories is important,” ACSH advises, “and the best way to let fact instead of fear guide your health-related decision.”
Here at the Panel, we are well familiar with stories that leave out essential “details.” Our larger problem, though, is with details that are in the stories, but are wrong. In response to the almost daily doses of misinformation about phthalates in the U.S. and foreign media -- much of it likely from misinformation provided by pressure groups -- we have contented ourselves with letters or phone calls to the reporter, or if the error is serious enough, a letter submitted for publication. We lately have decided that isn’t enough. See the new chart on our home page, over on the bottom right, which provides just a small sample of statements in the media that are not consistent with the scientific evidence, or just plain wrong ( as in “plastic water bottles contain phthalates”). Our plea to the media – check it out!
To read the ACSH article, go to http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.850/news_detail.asp.
Posted by Marian at 11:54 AM | Comments (0)