As managing editor of There's plenty of information available on the Web about chemicals, but many of the sites are loaded with misinformation or bias. So which sites can you trust?
STATS, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization affiliated with the George Mason University, recently polled toxicologists, and the results are pretty sobering. WebMD was the only source rated as accurate by the majority (56 percent) of toxicologists for covering the risks of chemicals. Second place went to Wikipedia (45 percent).
Only 15 percent described similar coverage in the national print media as accurate.
The survey isn't scientific, so take the results with a grain of salt, but it's interesting that toxicologists don't seem to be enamoured with the information available on the Web.
I decided to check out what WebMD has to say about bisphenol A, since that chemical has been in the news headlines. The site had a few relevant links, including one list of FAQ on BPA.
Here are a couple of the key questions and answers:
Is bisphenol A safe?That's a controversial question.
An FDA draft report issued in August 2008 says bisphenol A is safe at typical exposure levels from food and drink. But another government report, from the National Toxicology Program, doesn't rule out safety risks and notes "some concern" about effects on the brain, prostate gland, and behavior in fetuses, infants, and children.
The NTP's report, issued in September 2008, also notes "minimal concern" about effects on the mammary gland, early female puberty, and reproductive effects in adults who work with bisphenol A, and "negligible concern" about fetal or neonatal death, birth defects, reduced birth weight or grown in babies born to women exposed to bisphenol A during pregnancy, and reproductive effects in adults who don't work with bisphenol A.
The American Chemistry Council, a trade group for the plastics industry, says bisphenol A is safe for typical consumer uses.
What does the research say about bisphenol A?
A study published in the Sept. 17, 2008 edition of The Journal of the American Medical Association shows that adults with high levels of bisphenol A in their urine samples are more than twice as likely to report a history of heart disease or diabetes, compared to adults with low urinary levels of bisphenol A.
That study was the first to show an association between higher urinary levels of BPA and health problems in human adults. But it doesn't prove that bisphenol A causes heart disease or diabetes, and the researchers caution that their findings need to be confirmed.
Much of the other bisphenol A safety research has been done on rodents, which handle bisphenol A differently from humans. In those rodent studies, the greatest risk has been seen in developing fetuses and infants.
How about environmental groups, and industry groups like the American Chemistry Council? Interestly, industry groups polled higher on the accuracy scale. Only 3 percent of the toxicologists polled consider Greenpeace to be an accurate source of information, for example, compared to 41 percent for ACC.
Comments (1)
S. Robert Lichter, president of STATS, noted my comment on the survey being "unscientific," and he sent the following detailed response explaining the methodology of the survey:
In order to determine the collective judgment of the expert community on chemical risks to human health, the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University surveyed all full members of the Society of Toxicology (SOT), the professional association for toxicologists. (Toxicology is an interdisciplinary field which studies the adverse effect of chemicals on living organisms.) Among the criteria for full membership are several years of documented professional experience and/or publication of refereed journal articles in toxicology.
We created an online questionnaire with the assistance of Harris Interactive, a prominent international survey research firm and an industry leader in online polling. Construction of the instrument, including item selection, placement, rotation, etc., was reviewed by senior researchers at Harris Interactive, which then administered the survey. Respondents were contacted by email and given passwords with which to log onto the questionnaire. Following completion of the survey period, the results were collated by Harris personnel and forwarded to STATS.
From January 27 through March 2 we contacted 3562 SOT members, 1136 of whom responded, for a return rate of 32 percent. However, almost 200 of these filled out only part of the questionnaire, and many of these provided demographic information but skipped some or all of the key attitude questions. Therefore, the initial presentation of our findings was based on the responses of the 937 toxicologists who responded to every question. A comparison of this group with existing SOT membership data found differences of no more than a few percentage points on the variables of age, gender, and employment.
We appreciate the co-operation of Harris Interactive and the Society of Toxicology in making it possible for us to conduct this survey. Of course, STATS bears sole responsibility for the survey methodology and the presentation and interpretation of findings.
Posted by Don Loepp | June 4, 2009 10:50 AM
Posted on June 4, 2009 10:50