Over 5,000 tons of dangerous fumes escaped from consumer products, study finds
Michael Gosselin
News Article: https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/02/health/voc-levels-consumer-products-wellness/index.html
Scientific Paper (Website): https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c07247
Scientific Paper (ePDF): https://pubs.acs.org/doi/epdf/10.1021/acs.est.2c07247
The news article I chose to focus on is titled "Over 5,000 tons of dangerous fumes escaped from consumer products, study finds" and was published by CNN and authored by Sandee LaMotte; this article focuses on the paper: "Identifying Toxic Consumer Products: A Novel Data Set Reveals Air Emissions of Potent Carcinogens, Reproductive Toxicants, and Developmental Toxicants," authored by Knox, Dodson, Rudel, Polsky, and Schwarzman published in May of this year. The inspiration to examine this pair of media was influenced by "new shower curtain smell," that vinyl smell that screams "VOC's" and made me wonder what other types of "off-gassing" occurred in consumer products, from beauty and hygiene, to other types of products like paints and floor sealants. This paper focuses on these large types of categorizations along with California Air Resources Board (CARB) data on VOC's, as well as chemical categorizations by both CARB and the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Prop 65) to help draw these types of conclusions.
Some important key takeaways from the scientific paper's methodology are that this paper strictly focuses on products that have at least one chemical that is listed as hazardous in the Prop 65 lists, while other chemicals were studied, having at least one Prop 65 listed chemical was required for the product to be studied. This is very important because these lists only focus on chemicals that have the potential to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm and not other types of hazards, including asthmagenicity, neurotoxicity, and potential endocrine disruption. This study also works to derive a chemical classification regarding the urgency for elimination of that chemical in consumer products using the EPA risk-based screening levels (RSL's) for carcinogenic hazards and non carcinogenic hazards; they used the lower concentration if a chemical has both RSL's. The "first priority" compounds have an RSL of <1ppb, are in the top 10 EPA priority chemicals, or were listed as carcinogenic by the National Toxicology Program (NTP); other studied compounds are "second tier priorities." This study sought to understand which compounds had the greatest capacity to harm based on existing evidence. The last consideration is that this study considered a wide variety of "consumer products" inducing those used in manufacturing facilities, meaning that they needed to describe the impacts on three populations: consumers, workers, and the general population.
In order to better examine how effectively the article uses the science, I will focus primarily on the finding of this article as they pertain to the "consumers" and "general population" categories, as the article does not focus on the "workers" category. Using these categories and their subgroups (e.g. "On the Body" or "In the House" for consumer use), the study found that of 172 speciation profiles, 67 lacked Prop 65-listed compounds and the remaining 105 profiles contained up to 17 Prop 65-listed compounds. Notably, the compound found in the greatest number of profiles was methanol, I suspect this is likely caused by two factors: it decreases the freezing point, meaning it is safer to ship products since they won't freeze, and it is a pretty good solvent that will evaporate fairly quickly. Even more interestingly, methanol is not considered a "top tier" VOC, despite it being present in almost 50% more profiles than other studied VOC's. This study also sought a more qualitative estimate of these VOC's and was able to derive the plot below, listing the tons of that given VOC released per day. Unsurprisingly, methanol takes the crown here as well with the highest tpd value. The article uses some of these values to help show how important these VOC's are, but is not able to effectively make this point because the common public does not have an understanding of how much "__ tons of __ per day" really looks like, or how that impacts the environment.
I think that this news article does a nice job at the introduction to VOC's and exposure for the general public; while the introduction to VOC's does venture away from the key articles focus (i.e. toward VOC's and their impacts regarding asthma, the liver, and the central nervous system) it does provide additional sources for these claims. Additionally, they use a quote from the EPA which really helps to highlight why we should care about consumer product off-gassing: "concentrations of many VOC's are consistently higher indoors (up to ten times higher) than outdoors." This focuses on the consumer end of the paper, which I find is actually quite helpful in this situation, if this article tried to approach the whole paper I think it would lose a lot of the audience that this article attracted. This audience is then sent into a little bit of a concern spiral when another quote, from Birnbaum the former NTP director, is used to convey a lack of concern of consumer-end products and VOC's in the midst of pressure to legislate these compounds in occupational and manufacturing environments.
This article also has a section titled "Chemicals of Concern," wherein the author proceeds to list several VOC's and their potential harmful effects that were examined in this study. Personally, I find this section in particular to be a little bit concerning because while it is necessary to discuss these types of compounds and health impacts, they do not give any sort of dosage, LD50 value, or required absorption for any of the studied compounds. In particular, this sort of reporting is irresponsible (and perhaps a little disingenuous) at best, and harmful at worst; for instance, water will kill you if you inhale it, but it is necessary to drink water if you want to live. I absolutely agree with the author in concept, that we need to be cautious around these types of chemicals, but I disagree with the unclear communication about these types of compounds and how these effects can occur. Similarly, this article has a section at the end titled "Actions to take" which lists some general precautionary behaviors and helps to describe why it is that legislating these VOC's at the consumer end is difficult.
The rest of my qualms with this paper focus on the use of quotes and statistics and how they are implemented in the article. The first major qualm I have about this article is that they cite Dr. Megan R. Schwarzman as the study's lead author which is not reflected in the published articles list of authors. While her quotes are accurate and in line with the findings and do not dispute the findings of the article. Additionally, this article uses specific claims about VOC's, particularly quotes about neurotoxicity from Jane Houlihan, national director of science and health for Healthy Babies Bright Futures, to help highlight why it is that we care about VOC's, but this type of information was not studied in the paper. The article does note when people who provide quoted material are not involved with the study, which does provide some redeeming quality, but does not change the fact that the introductory information is a little misleading compared to the article. For all these reasons, I give this article a 7/10; while it does accurately represent the science, it does not always provide informational consistency and is not always specific in the claims it makes outside of the reach of articles. If these claims were verified with other sources, or these claims were dropped I would give this article a slightly better rating, only because it would dampen the fear-inducing claim that "VOC's are coming for you, especially benzene in your deodorant" without other necessary information.
It sounds to me like your news article is walking a very fine line between representing the scientific article accurately and making sure the general public can understand what it's saying. For example, you say that the results are reported in a "__ tons of __ per day" format which the general audience would have a hard time understanding. On the other hand, you also said that, "if this article tried to approach the whole paper I think it would lose a lot of the audience that this article attracted." So now I'm curious and my main question is what do you think would happen if the news article decided to lean in any one direction? Would it benefit more from putting things into simpler terms so the general public can understand it, but take away from the science of the study? Or would it be better to try and explain the scientific article in more detail in a way the general public can try and understand it so the scientific article's full message comes across?
ReplyDeleteHi Valentine, I absolutely agree that the article walks a fine line between accurate science representation and communicating the science to the general public. I think that if the article decided to lean toward making the science digestible by the general public then it would lose the potential to be as accurate as possible. This type of easily digestible communication requires someone (who preferably has a science background) to filter out "nitty gritty science" without losing core components of what makes that science respected; in the situation where this person is not well rehearsed in academic scientific writing and communication, then we run into an issue where a news article can come across as an opinion piece where "the science" of the paper is muddled to "prove a point." Alternatively, if this CNN article leaned heavily into the science, they would lose a significant amount of their readers who want the snippets and latest in the science without having a brain overload. In this situation, I think that the author walked a fine line with this article, then muddled it with "this is what VOC's can do" without any rigorous backing. My qualms with this article rely heavily on this idea where they were highlighting the article in a very good and efficient way, then devolved into other discussions that come across as click-baity or for the "shock factor." To answer your question explicitly: the article communicates the results of this article well, but without a heavy discussion of the methodology; however, this slight failure is overshadowed by other components I found to be compelling in concerning ways.
DeleteI am curious about your opinion about how appropriate the call to action is. I know you mentioned that there is a concern spiral, but the research this article is based on also seem to indicate a need to reduce exposer. The article seems to use some interesting methods to garner concern but most people do not ever think about VOC's so some of the excess drama almost feels needed. I agree they should find sources to back their claims, but it can be hard to get through to people the dangers their convenances hold.
ReplyDeleteHi Carlie, I think that the call to action in the CNN article feels a little out of place given the other sections in the article. Given the CNN audience as more “common people,” this call to action almost feels impossible and a little condescending (I.e. the common person doesn’t have sufficient power to change regulation, particularly if commercial lawyers are fighting for the other team). I agree that there seems to be a lack of concern about VOC’s in the everyday world, but also think that Prop 65 has actually helped reinforce this issue. In Michigan, we still see Prop 65 warnings on a lot of our products, and unfortunately after a certain point it’s almost desensitizing; this is to say, the issue of VOC’s and other potential contaminants feel unavoidable, if every other thing in the store I pick up has a warning label, it just feels impossible not to pick those products. Notably, a lot of these products aren’t just for convenience, a fair amount are cleaning products and other products to enforce safety; this is absolutely a huge issue that should be talked about, but knowing the audience for CNN, I think this call to action feels out of place and almost tactless.
DeleteI agree that the news article is a fairly good representation of what is covered in the research study. However, the "Chemicals of Concern" section also bugged me. While the information provided in the article is not inaccurate, its lack of important values such as LD50 paints a rather incomplete picture. I can understand that the author wanted to appeal to a more general audience and didn't want to boggle them down with scientific jargon. However, the "Chemicals of Concern" section might actually hurt the goal of getting people to care by painting these consumer products in an overwhelmingly negative light without providing any alternatives. Although exposure to said chemicals can--as both the article and study put it--lead to health problems, I don't think many readers will accept a complete abandonment of cleaning detergents, mothballs, etc.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree and see your point! My largest issue with the last two sections, particularly with the desensitization to Prop 65 warning markers is that it provides a feeling of impossibility without any way to actually do anything about it. I think that there’s a larger issue here that rests with industry, not just with the consumer. In this way, it feels like the author is preaching to the choir and making them realize the direness of their situation.
DeleteVery interesting article. I always like when news articles contextualize the discussed science into the broader scope of our world. Sometimes when I read a paper, I ask myself, "why should we care about this?" Many scientific articles put their research int he context of where they fit in their niche scientific community. So I appreciate that some news articles take a step farther and take the time to describe what VOCs are and what exposure to these entail (for this example), because it makes it so much easier for the average reader to follow the narrative and importance of the findings being discussed.
ReplyDeleteI can see your point, but also think that this type of integration is much more of an art than a science. In this case, I feel like the article was walking a fine line between “opinion piece” and “public informant.” I look at this situation more as an issue of length, in a scientific paper we have pages and pages to describe everything, in news articles this is a much more condensed format; by cutting down the format, I think there is less space for non-article introductory content, and in this situation, I feel like it would work against their rating if they did not say who did not work on the scientific paper.
DeleteI found the CNN article to be very interesting in the fact that it didn't focus on the second tier Prop 65 chemicals at all. While I agree they most likely aren't doing as much damage as a top tier Prop 65 chemical like formaldehyde, being exposed to methanol on a daily basis through these products isn't the healthiest thing either.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I found it odd that the CNN article neglected to talk about some workers being more likely to be exposed to these chemicals, like janitors and hair stylists, for example. I think this is a large problem considering these workers are likely getting a much larger dose of these chemicals than your average consumer, and I feel the article would have more weight if this was pointed out.
Last, I also agree it is annoying they called the corresponding author the lead author of the scientific article, but I think that could be an easy mistake to make as the reporter may not know the difference.
The figures you included here are interesting and were a big surprise for me! 3 of those compounds (ethylene glycol, styrene, and methanol) are things I've encountered many times before, especially in my undergraduate research. I didn't know that ethylene glycol and methanol are potential carcinogens/might cause reproductive harm. Additionally, the fact that styrene is a first priority VOC and yet is used relatively commonly is striking to me! I also agree with your mixed feelings towards the author's use of unclear and even irresponsible communication to try and get the audience to understand how these chemicals can be harmful. However, it's a tough thing to do to try and get the public to understand the health hazards of certain chemicals and get them to care while simultaneously trying not to make people afraid of something they don't need to be.
ReplyDeleteHi Ali, I absolutely agree that it’s kinda shocking that a lot of these common compounds are on Prop 65 lists; however, I also think it’s important to note how these compounds interact biologically, their respective bioavailabilities, and LD50’s (and other similar quantities). These quantities in particular are why I have such a grievance with the “compounds of concern” section in the article, well, I should say the lack of these quantities in the article. I absolutely agree that it’s tough to communicate these types of issues to the public, but also think that withholding information is one of the most irresponsible ways to attempt this feat.
DeleteI thought this was a very interesting article. I'm never sure to what extent the news articles should be talking about findings not found the study they're discussing. For this article in particular, I think it was important to discuss the health side effects of these VOCs to expand the scope of the scientific findings. However, I think it is important to make sure these are from accurate and citied sources. This is especially important when you're talking about health impacts for the article to scare the reader enough to car but not enough to panic; this is often a tough line to balance. I think it is also important to make clear distinctions in the news article about which scientists have scientists that are not related to the research to skew the findings of the paper.
ReplyDeleteAs I was reading through the article, I felt immediately put off by the lack of specificity around the extensive 'cancer causing' list of products: shampoo, body lotion, dishwashing soap, caulking compounds, room deodorizers, household cleaners, paint removers, flooring, carpet and pressed-wood products were immediately mentioned in the article, with a vague statement that they all "may contain" these chemicals. I agree with your point that this kind of reporting is harmful, and it feels a lot like fear mongering to get clicks. The news article does not specify which of the on shelf products contain harmful chemicals, or the negative health effects observed. In my opinion, if there's any information that should be in this article, it is that information. It doesn't feel like that information would be beyond the scope of the average reader, rather it would be something that would likely result in a close reading of the article.
ReplyDelete