Now the target is phthalates: By Fumento >> November 26 1998 ... U.S. is behind the curve.

[Guest guest]

ECPI - Media comment Now the

target is phthalates, a chemical

that makes plastics soft for toys and

.... or silicone breast implants, scares which left Europeans

scratching their ...

http://www.ecpi.org/index.asp?page=53

- 14k - similar pages

Greenpeace Yells Fire In A Crowded

Daycare Center

By Fumento, News Article, November 26 1998 Uh-oh,

it's time to be afraid again. Be very afraid. No, it isn't pesticides this

time, nor household radon, silicone implants, cellular phones, or any of the

previous bogeymen. Now the target is phthalates, a chemical that makes plastics

soft for toys and teething rings. Lots of

damage will be done before this blows over but maybe, just maybe, this time

we'll learn a lesson. That

assault was bolstered by the air of an ABC "20/20" segment which

asked: "Are Babies at Risk for a Chemical Found in Toys?" and

answered with a resounding "Yes!" ABC

reporter Ross told trusting and trembling viewers, "studies at high

doses in laboratory animals have shown that phthalates are toxic to the liver

and kidney and cause cancer." Now here (with apologies to Harvey) is

the REST of the story. ABC's

self-described "major 20/20 investigation"of phthalates was a

collusive effort with Greenpeace. By the greatest of coincidences it appeared

on the same day the environmental group released its "report" on the

dangers of phthalates. "Report" is in quotes, though, because it was

actually an opinion piece with a few notes attached. The body of it is shorter

than what you're reading here. Greenpeace's

blitzkrieg also prompted articles in the Wall Street Journal, The New York

Times, and elsewhere, though both these papers seemed rather skeptical. Not so

ABC. "20/20"

told us that four European countries have already banned phthalates in

children's toys and others are considering various restrictions. The idea is

that the U.S. is behind the curve. Funny how no environmentalist or safety watchdogs said we

were "behind" Europeans during our frenzies over Alar, household

radon, or silicone breast implants, scares which left Europeans scratching

their heads at our folly. The main

reason for the European bans has nothing to do with toxicology and everything

to do with Greenpeace being a lot more influential there than here. ABC also

didn't say that studies on human adults in three different European countries

found minuscule phthalate migration from plastic into the mouth. The

best-known of these, a "chew and spit" study from the Netherlands'

National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, showed that taking

into account children's biting and sucking times, 95 percent of the children

would receive less than a half of the Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) set by the

European Union for the phthalate Greenpeace is attacking, while 99 percent

would be under the limit. It

granted the theoretical possibility of some child somewhere exceeding this, but

said it's "so rare that statistical likelihood cannot be estimated"

and even this excess might be meaningless. Further, for children less than a

year old "the risk is considerably lower," it said, as if it were

possible to be considerably lower. ABC did

quote an industry spokesman saying that a child would have to be eating toys

and teething rings rather than sucking on them to even approach the theoretical

danger limit. It could have quoted an independent scientist saying the same,

but that's not how you play the game. Instead you pit a "consumer

advocate"against someone with money at stake, allowing the viewer to draw

the obvious cynical conclusion. In any

case, if your child EATS toys, phthalates are the least of your worries. But

actually there is no danger limit. You see, ABC and Greenpeace also didn't tell

us that phthalates have caused tumors only in rodents. Other studies showed

that the chemical caused no harmful biological activity in guinea pigs (which

aren't rodents) and most importantly for human purposes--in two species of

monkey. Why?

Because rats and mice have huge numbers of a specific cell receptor that

phthalates can irritate (through a mechanism called "peroxisome

proliferation") into causing tumors. Guinea pigs, monkeys, and yes humans

have about a tenth the number of such receptors. Further, each receptor we do

have is apparently less sensitive than rodent ones. Ethical

considerations prevent massive dose testing of live humans, but lab tests of

human cells have shown no reaction, while the rodent cells exposed to

phthalates went wild. Hence phthalates slide out of us and our various

non-rodent animal friends without passing "GO," collecting $200, or causing

damage. In

preferring rodent studies over those of primates, ABC and Greenpeace appear to

be taking the expression "rugrats" just a wee bit far. But

again, that's part of the game. Tell people it's strictly a problem for nasty

rodents and not for kids and your argument (and ratings) vanish like the pretty

ladies in magician Copperfield's act. Finally,

ABC could have told viewers this is just Greenpeace's latest ploy in its

campaign to ultimately ban any and all synthetic chemicals and a desperate

attempt to restore its solvency. Since 1991, the group has lost almost

two-thirds of its members and over half its budget. In 1997 it was forced to

close all of its field offices and lay off all but 65 of 390 staffers. To

rebuild itself, the Christian Science Monitor noted in July, "the

organization is struggling to regain its radical spark." Toy

companies have been responding to this radical spark by promising to remove

phthalates from their toys or simply yanking toys from the market. This though each

insists it's only a PR move, that their products have always been safe. So

parents, kids and sound science all lose and Greenpeace wins with a bit of help

from its friends at ABC.

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG.

Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.8/1412 - Release Date: 5/2/2008 4:34 PM