« December 2007 | Main | July 2008 »
January 30, 2008
A top contender in the Error Derby
In a competition for number of errors crammed into one sentence, the following, from the Albany Times-Union, would surely be a top contender:
Phthalates (Di-exyl-hexyl phthalate), a carcinogen, has been linked to birth defects in the male reproductive system. It can be found in nail polish, deodorant, fragrance, hairspray and lotions.
About the only thing right in this sentence is the spelling of the phthalate, known familiarly as DEHP. Otherwise:
- DEHP is not, according to the Personal Care Products Council, used as an ingredient in personal care products. Not even the leading anti-cosmetics pressure group claims otherwise. In product tests recently conducted by this pressure group to look for the presence of DEHP, it found traces of DEHP in only three products. The highest concentration it found was 25 parts per million (10,000 parts per million would be one percent). These concentrations are so low that it seems pretty apparent it’s a trace amount, possibly picked up from the packaging.
- DEHP is not a carcinogen in the eyes of most regulatory authorities and the World Health Organization. Scientists have concluded that the cancer effects seen in rats given large doses of DEHP result from a process that scientists say is irrelevant to human biology.
- Large doses of DEHP are linked to reproductive and developmental effects in male rats. While some scientists have assumed that extremely high doses of DEHP might result in similar effects in humans, these doses are far higher than that to which people are exposed, according to exposure data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Further, no human study has presented such a connection in humans, and there is even some evidence to suggest that primates may be far more resistant and perhaps even immune to the sorts of effects seen from high dosing of rats with DEHP.
Posted by Marian at 12:36 PM | Comments (0)
January 16, 2008
Do I say “thank you?”
It is a dubious honor to make the “Dubious Data” list at the Statistical Assessment Service once again. Every year, this science media watchdog agency picks out the most egregious examples of bad science writing. In its list for 2007, there we are again, among the best of the worst for yet another year. In fact, the author of the column, a New York-based, British-born journalist named Trevor Butterworth has even coined a word for the kind of coverage we too often get – “phthalatophobia,” which he identifies as a sub-category of “chemophobia.” His annual column is fun to read, but a dispiriting comment on the frequent failure of reporters to “check it out” before putting pen to paper.
Posted by Marian at 8:47 PM | Comments (0)
January 15, 2008
California scientist says "bah" to phthalate bans
Hoover Institution scientist and essayist Dr. Henry Miller has some harsh words for his home state of California for passing a phthalates ban, and for the introduction of a copy-cat bill in the U.S. Congress. Both, he writes, represent “bad science, bad law and disregard for the public interest.” Here is a link to his op-ed, which was published in The Los Angeles Times.
Posted by Marian at 2:12 PM | Comments (0)
January 10, 2008
Science wins one, for a change
It is gratifying to report that the politics of fear that infected California on the subject of phthalates in toys hasn’t gotten to federal regulators. In response to a media query, a Consumer Product Safety Commission spokesperson said the agency had no plans to honor the request from California that phthalates in toys be banned nationwide.
Noting that the agency had done extensive research on the subject, the agency spokesperson said “it was determined through our staff research that there is not a great risk to safety and health because of phthalates." (Scientists and regulators will never say that anything is “no risk.”) The spokesperson added that the agency would continue to watch the science in case anything came along to change its mind. We heartily agree with that stance. Regulatory decisions on products should be based on risk, not rhetoric.
Posted by Marian at 6:36 PM | Comments (0)