If you read the recent report by the Silent Spring Institute, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, you may come away with the impression that you should be afraid very afraid of any product containing any chemical, especially if it has more than two syllables and is difficult to pronounce.
For this study in the broadest sense of the term, since it s closer to a manifesto than a report based on the scientific method the Institute looked for the mere presence of chemicals in a variety of common consumer products, including cleaners, cosmetics, and sunscreens. The list of chemicals they measured includes everything from alkylphenols to phthalates to UV filters and even a category denoted as fragrances. The report then goes on to call these chemicals endocrine disruptors and asthma-associated chemicals, and asserts that because some of these supposedly dangerous compounds are not included on the labels of products containing them, consumers health is at risk.
ACSH s Dr. Gilbert Ross was personally offended at the failure of the authors, not to mention the journal, to make even a pretense of following the scientific method in this anti-chemical diatribe: The publication makes no effort to determine whether the levels of exposure to the chemicals found in these products actually pose any risk to human health."
Furthermore, the report fails to define what exactly an endocrine disruptor or asthma-associated chemical consists of. Just because they put these chemicals on a list and say they re dangerous, doesn t mean that there is any scientific evidence supporting those claims, adds Dr. Ross. Are there any health effects when people are exposed to these chemicals in consumer products? This report says absolutely nothing to support the claim that these compounds adversely affect consumer health.
These products have been used safely for decades, notes ACSH s Dr. Elizabeth Whelan. And many of these products confer significant health benefits, such as sunscreen protecting against skin cancer and BPA protecting our food. This report completely ignores the benefits of including certain chemicals in these products, and scares consumers without any scientific basis. This should come as no surprise, since this is an advocacy organization posing as a scientific group, single-mindedly focused on finding environmental toxins everywhere. They are aided and abetted by the Environmental Health Perspectives journal and the sensation-hungry media.