There was substantial media coverage this week of the claim by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), based on analyses of a small number of umbilical blood samples, that newborn babies are exposed even before birth to toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Few stories put the disturbing assertions in perspective.
Journalists should have emphasized the obvious fact that modern technology has given us techniques for measuring minuscule levels of just about anything in anyone. Instead, they chose flamboyant and emotionally-charged rhetoric, conveying the message that the health of unborn children was in jeopardy due to their exposure to trace levels of chemicals in the environment.
If there were an "award" for the most graphically hyped description of the EWG claim, it would go to Maggie Fox from Reuters, whose column appeared in the Washington Post and dozens of other papers around the world.
Ms. Fox noted that "unborn U.S. babies are soaking in a stew of chemicals."
The Associated Press proclaimed "Fetuses Exposed to Toxic Chemicals." David Goldstein of the Kansas City Star wrote of "a tide of industrial pollutants invading (the) womb." And Douglas Fischer in the Oakland Tribune announced that "babies enter the world with hundreds of industrial chemicals...in their veins."
A number of the news reports did include the obligatory quotes from the chemical trade associations to the effect that our ability to detect chemicals does not in itself mean that a hazard is present. But that modicum of rationality did little to neutralize the horrifying images evoked by the main message, that the most vulnerable among us were now "soaking" and "stewing" in "industrial pollution."
When it comes to reporting frightening stories, the mainstream media seem ready, willing, and able to buy into whatever is served up to them. In the case of reporting the "umbilical blood" and other EWG stories, journalists appear to be unconcerned that the EWG is not a scientific organization (it is an environmental advocacy group), nor are the media bothered by the fact that the "study" they are reporting on wasn't published in a professional medical journal or presented at a scientific forum. Was it just good red-meat copy in their eyes -- irresistable fodder for those preying on a chemical-phobic society to sell newspapers -- and perhaps a chance to advance their own pro-regulation agenda?
Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan is president of the American Council on Science and Health.
