Study Finds Toxic Compounds in Common US Consumer Products
October 18, 2023
By Nick Emer
News Article: Common US consumer products release toxic compounds, new research shows | Pollution | The Guardian
This blog post refers to an article from The Guardian, published May 3, 2023, entitled “Common US consumer products release toxic compounds, new research shows”, by Tom Perkins, which attempts to discuss the results of the study, published May 2, 2023, entitled “Identifying Toxic Consumer Products: A Novel Data Set Reveals Air Emissions of Potent Carcinogens, Reproductive Toxicants, and Developmental Toxicants”, by Kristen E. Knox et al.
The scientific study focuses its research on the basis that many commonly used consumer products in the home and the workplace contain chemicals with known hazards that can lead to many negative health effects, such as asthma and cancer. The researchers refer to an important Californian law, called Prop 65, which was passed in 1986 to ultimately reduce consumer exposure to toxic chemicals and mitigate harmful effects of these chemicals should we be in the presence of them. The researchers claim that using the Prop 65 list to identify hazardous volatile chemicals in consumer products “are relevant to the U.S. overall, given the size of the California market and evidence that products are not specially formulated for that state.” Thus, the study used the Prop 65 list of hazardous volatile chemicals in consumer products reported in CARB inventories to further understand how people are exposed to these different chemicals at home and the workplace. In an attempt to identify the Prop 65-listed agents that posed the greatest threat to human health, the researchers classified chemicals as being “top tier priorities for elimination” and “second tier priorities”, where the top tier agents were classified as having either a RSL (EPA risk-based screening level) below 1 ug/m3, the chemical was one of the first 10 priority chemicals evaluated under the EPA in the 2016 revised TSCA, or the chemical was listed by the NTP as a posed cancer threat in the U.S. The study separated consumers into different groups based on their potential exposure and further subcategorized consumers by where the product is used (e.g., the body, the home and how often it is used, etc.).
The study found that formaldehyde, found in seven
categories, was the most reported top tier chemical among categories used on
the body, while ethylene glycol was the most reported second tier chemical used
on the body, while “Other Personal Care Products” contained the greatest number
of Prop 65 chemicals and top tier chemicals as well. The researchers also found
94 workplace-related product categories containing at least one Prop 65-listed
chemical and the most top-tier chemicals. Many chemicals, including methanol,
ethylbenzene, and toluene were found, which are likely to be exposed to workers.
Of all three categories (consumer, workplace, population exposure), methylene
chloride was emitted in the greatest volume of the top-tier chemicals, while
methanol was emitted in the greatest volume of the second-tier chemicals. Further,
based on the total emissions of all Prop 65-listed chemicals, “Paint Removers
or Strippers” was the highest-emitting category, followed by “Automotive
Windshield Washer Fluid – Type A Areas (i.e., colder areas of California)”. Comparing
the outcomes of the prioritization scheme with US EPA’s Consumer Product
Database (CPDat) resulted in methanol, toluene, ethylene glycol, and
formaldehyde emerging as the highest number of CPDat product use categories. While
the Prop 65 list of chemicals does not contain every known carcinogen and
toxicant, and while the study obviously has some shortcomings, as do all, it really
does a great job providing information to its academic audience about harmful
VOCs in everyday consumer products and helps inform us about how we can limit
or terminate exposure.
While the news article is relatively short, Perkins does a decent job describing the important background information relative to the study and draws on some important conclusions. The article seems to be an attempt to make the public aware of the many harmful chemicals present in all sorts of consumer products so that they can be informed and understand the risks of using products that they may or may not realize have these chemicals. While it is not necessary to draw upon all of the data and results from the paper, Perkins could have done a better job including a few more statistics or figures in the paper that would at least give the reader a little something to look at that can easily lay out the most important results of the study. Since this is a news article and not the scientific paper, it makes sense that Perkins would say something like “Overall, the research found more than 100 products with VOCs, and 30 – including a dozen different types of personal care products…greatest health risk” to, perhaps, “warn” the public, or just lay out the results of the research just to get to the point. However, his approach seems a bit lazy in the sense that the data he provides isn’t necessarily exact data from the study; rather, numbers that might support a very small part of the study or even a very vague aspect of the study that may not be as important as other conclusions. His approach is also a bit too simplistic, as I think it would be much more helpful as a reader to hear about some of the specific information in the study, such as the ways the researchers categorized different exposure levels and how they prioritized certain Prop-65 listed chemicals. I mean, it’s important to actually have an idea about the premises for the study and have some background knowledge, rather than just hear a few outcomes of the study that are somewhat poorly portrayed. I’m sure the general population wouldn’t necessarily care for that sort of information, and for that reason, I can understand why an author of a news article wouldn’t bother to include those sorts of details, but I just think it’s too important not to at least list relevant data. Why not just include a couple figures from the study and let the audience draw their own conclusions?
There are also some quotes Perkins includes that I cannot find in the original paper. This isn’t as big a deal to me, as the quotes are honestly not very helpful in understanding the significance of the study, anyway. While there is quite a lot of data to draw from this paper, I wouldn’t expect Perkins to expand on all of it, as that would be unnecessary; nonetheless, something Perkins took from the near end of the paper was the focus that researchers identified 11 VOCs that should be eliminated from products, as well as 5 that should be banned under the country’s toxic substances laws. While this isn’t inaccurate information, it’s difficult to fully accept the statement after having just read the scientific article since there is so much specific information lacking. While a general news outlet isn’t going to be as interested in knowing the specific data and analysis of the study, it would make sense to include the names of some of the most important chemicals that are being referred to, if not all, since the purpose of the article is to warn people about these harmful chemicals. Do they expect people to find this information from the scientific paper? Perkins does include some necessary information regarding specific chemicals, but it is not sufficient enough information to generalize the whole study. For instance, he identifies formaldehyde as the most common VOC in products used on the body, according to the study, which is important to know; however, upon reading the scientific paper, there is a significant amount of data and analysis to draw from that is far too important not to share with the public.
Overall, Perkins does a moderately good job of describing
the main takeaways from the scientific paper, which includes some important
findings from the research but clearly not enough. Thus, I feel that a rating of a
5/10 is most appropriate for this article.
ReplyDeleteThere has been a recurring trend of a lot of the articles lately not having any figures and a general omission of data. The omission of figures is the most confusing to me because they simply makes the articles look more engaging. I agree that the inclusion of more data would highly improve the quality of the article,
My article happened to be by the same author and he also hardly put any actual data in the article as well. I think this might be his way of making the study easier to comprehend by the general public, but I agree that adding numbers helps emphasize the seriousness of the situation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Marla in that the decision to not include figures was likely to make the study easier to comprehend, but also the readership of the Guardian is looking for a little bit of entertainment along with a little bit of education. My guess is too many figures, data, and categories (Nick had an issue with the lack of them) just becomes blah blah blah to the readers and they lose interest without finishing the article. This is not in the interest of the Guardian. However, I would also mention that I agree that a lack of urgency in the article is harmful enough to readers' understanding of the situation that it warrants more extreme criticism, like others have pointed out.
DeleteI want to begin by agreeing with the aforementioned comments from Katherine and Marla, the lack of data in the article, especially in the form of figures significantly harms the article. It leaves an easy way to gain reader interest on the table, especially in the form of figures where the reader can discern for themselves what is going on.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that while the article being short and concise while outlining the rank of these chemicals in their danger is beneficial, it would help consumers, an explanation in simple terms of why specific chemicals are dangerous based off data is essential.
I think the news article did the bare minimum in terms of presenting data. Examples of this includes mentions of formaldehyde and exactly how many VOCs were identified in consumer products, workplace products, etc. However, I agree that the author should have clarified what these chemicals are. I also think the news article could have differentiated between chemicals that are harmful to consumers and VOC's that are harmful for workers. Finally, my biggest issue with this article--despite taking quotes from the study--is that it is incredibly vague on why these chemicals are harmful. The article never goes into the specific symptoms that can arise out of exposure to VOCs, so the sense of urgency is just not present.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me like the author of the news article was walking a fine line between trying to be an informative piece and coming off as fear-mongering. Do you think if the author were to include more information from the scientific article, would it make their paper come off as trying to scare people? Or would it just lose the general audience and make it less accessible to them?
ReplyDeleteOne thing I liked about the scientific article was that they categorized the chemicals on the prop 65 list. One of my first thoughts while reading this was about how hazardous each common chemical was and if some of them are only hazardous under certain conditions or concentrations. With that being said, I was surprised that the news article didn't talk about this part of the study. It felt like the news article intentionally left this out to worry readers and gain attention in the media. The news story made it sound like everything in your house is killing you without offering clear information about how the problems are being addressed.
ReplyDeleteI think some of the figures in this scientific article are easy enough to understand that they would add to a news article meant for the general public. Even if they didn't include a figure, I think the news article should have gone into some discussion on the differences between a tier one and tier two chemical and how this is decided.
ReplyDeleteThe Guardian news article provides quite a brief summation of the scientific article. While it was appreciated that certain 'bullet points' were provided regarding number of VOCs and specific industries' exposure, the name and severity of these compounds were lacking within the news article. This was a shame as one particular area I found particularly interesting was the research paper's 18 'top tier priorities for elimination' which is only mentioned in passing within the Guardian article.
ReplyDeleteHello Nick, while I agree with your analysis of the article, I would actually give it more credit than a 5/10. The sheer diversity of information in the scientific paper would be too much for a short news article to properly present. With that in mind, I think that the author did well to portray the pertinent information in a short time. Though it would have been better if they described the effects of these chemicals beyond just "dangerous."
ReplyDeletehello nick sorry for the late comment, I agree with your rating of a 5/10. The sheer lack of information presented in the news article makes it a very mediocre article. I feel like the Guardian article made a point not to include a lot of specifics from the actual article in order not to overscare people, but in trying to do this they end up leaving out a lot of crucial data. Do you think trying to cater to the general audience was an impetus for the authors of the Guardian article not going into specifics?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that including much information about the VOCs would lead to lots of jargon and loss of focus. I like that they simplified the workplace exposure section, allowing readers to understand the sources better and at least know the name of the toxins that might have entered their body. It is also beneficial for the news article to land on how consumers can use the scientific information presented to avoid consuming products with harmful chemicals, while the scientific article gave suggestions to manufacturers and regulators. They together show a great example of science communication, especially how important it is to recognize your audience.
ReplyDelete