Today, CEI releases the first of a series of studies on chemicals and the precautionary principle. Activist groups around the nation have been calling for greater regulation of chemicals, which they say would protect the public from the scourge of such things as cancer. In reality, their claims are based on junk science and their prescriptions threaten to undermine public health.
CEI’s first paper addresses activist hype related to cosmetics. Author Dana Joel Gattuso explains why consumers should not fall for the activist hype attacking cosmetics and other personal care products. In particular, she points out that if lawmakers followed consumer advice and removed certain chemicals from cosmetics, public health would suffer: “Present in quantities so small—typically, less than 1 percent of a product’s total weight—they are added to prevent contamination and to protect consumers from the buildup of dangerous bacteria that can cause eye infections, skin rashes, and even deadly infections such as E. coli and Salmonella,” Gattuso notes. She explains further:
In spite of the lack of scientific evidence of health risks from these ingredients, the anti-chemical groups have been successful in creating a climate of fear among many consumers—and lawmakers. The legislation they are promoting, the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011, would ban any cosmetic and skin care ingredients that exceed a one in a million risk of an adverse health impact—which is to say it would ban most ingredients since almost everything carries risk greater than one in a million. While the risks from products not containing these additives would be much higher, those risks would not be considered. In effect, the bill would ban the very chemicals that protect consumers.
Activists at the Breast Cancer Fund are scheduled to release a new scaremongering “study” on the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) tomorrow, suggesting that children are at risk from Campbell’s Soup. As part of their “Cans Not Cancer” campaign, the group measured BPA levels in a handful of canned goods and concluded: “There is a toxic chemical lurking in your child’s Campbell’s Disney Princess soup,” and other food products.
Why is the Breast Cancer Fund issuing a report about risk to children? What does that have to do with the cause of fighting breast cancer? Nothing at all. Instead it is part of an irrational anti-chemical campaign to rid the world of a very valuable chemical.
BPA makes transparent, polycarbonate plastics exceptionally strong and resistant to breakage and to relatively high heat. It is remarkably durable and easily sterilized, making it well suited for reuse and recycling and medical applications. BPA is also used to make resins and coatings that are suitable for application to a wide range of surfaces at a wide range of temperatures. As a result, it helps prevent corrosion and increases product durability. Its application in food packaging — lining aluminum and steel cans for example — not only reduces food waste, it prevents the development of dangerous contamination and pathogens in the food supply, providing a key public safety benefit.
[click to continue…]
The Greens keep trying to change the subject when it comes to what the released Treasury documents about cap-and-trade actually show. They’ve got a bunch of talking points and, by Jove, they’re sticking to them. One of them is this one, from the Environmental Defense Fund’s spokesman:
In terms of the Waxman-Markey bill, “Every one of the independent analyses out there show small costs,” Kreindler added.
Really? Every one?
What about this one? (“The annual cost of emissions permits to energy users will be at least $100 billion by 2012 and could exceed $390 billion by 2035″)
Or this one? (“High energy prices, fewer jobs, and loss of industrial output are estimated to reduce U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by between $419 billion and $571 billion by 2030″)
Ah, but they aren’t independent, are they? After all, they weren’t, err, produced by, erm, arms of the Federal Government like the Congressional Budget Office, Energy Information Administration or Environmental Protection Agency.
Meanwhile, even using the figures of those “independent” government estimates, the Waxman-Markey Bill is still a terrible deal for Americans.
According to a new report released by enviro-scare artists at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, most food packaging still contains the chemical Bisphenol A (BPA). That is supposed to scare you, but I say, who cares? It’s there because it’s useful. BPA is one substance has proven very helpful in maintaining the integrity of the products it packages and there is scant evidence of anyone ever having a problem. The idea that food companies want to slowly poison their customers and that the Food and Drug Administration supports that strategy by issuing reports on BPA safety should be quickly dismissed as silly. But the green groups continue to make this case.
They note that the substance is found in human urine, which they say is evidence of exposure. Yes, indeed and it is also evidence to the fact that BPA quickly metabolizes and leaves the human body, like many harmless substances do. The simple fact is, the human body is exposed to trace-level chemicals on a daily bases, man-made and otherwise. This mere exposure to trace levels tells us nothing about risk. When the is risk is negligible, as FDA and others have found, there is no reason panic. Yet Greens focus on exposure and then target the chemicals they think make industry must vulnerable to attacks—because apparently for some reason, they don’t like business.
My colleague Jonathan Tolman and I have both written on the topic, highlighting the facts about the science and the risks. But these groups don’t seem to care much about the science. Apparently, the hype gets them more media attention and more power.
“Russian Voting Tinged with Green”
This Washington Post headline from earlier this month illustrates one of worrisome side-effects of authoritarian rule. Political freedom is denied the citizenry but the pressures to allow some form of dissent remain. Religious dissent often is treated more liberally – and the eco-theocratic values of today are the dominant religion of our secular society. The risk the Russians face is that in their effort to escape Red tyranny they may rush into the hands of the Greens. That would be tragic — Virginia Postrel noted long ago that she preferred the old Reds to the new Greens. Both restricted economic and individual freedom but, at least, the Reds aimed at helping humanity. That goal is rarely given much priority by green zealots.
Grist seems gleeful that New Scientist thinks “our economy is killing the Earth.” According to New Scientist:
Consumption of resources is rising rapidly, biodiversity is plummeting and just about every measure shows humans affecting Earth on a vast scale….A growing band of experts are looking at figures like these and arguing that personal carbon virtue and collective environmentalism are futile as long as our economic system is built on the assumption of growth. The science tells us that if we are serious about saving Earth, we must reshape our economy.
Is there any doubt over the prescription? “Expect tough decisions on wealth, tax, jobs and birth rates,” intones one of the entries. As CEI’s Fred Smith has noted, the greens think there are too many people, too much production and consumption, and too much technology. Thus the environmentalist prescription too easily boils down to “death, poverty and ignorance.” Sustain the “Earth” (requisite reverent tremble in the voice here), but people? Who needs ‘em.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 