The Vinyl Institute and its members share Steve Toloken's interest in protection of public health and sound science (“Sound science blind to opposing views,” Sept. 24, Page 10). Our members endorse the principles of Responsible Care and conduct studies and file reports measuring their performance. We are proud of the way they have been able to achieve significant and sustained reductions in emissions and workplace illnesses and injuries over the past several years.
We view this as an ongoing endeavor, one that requires a continued commitment to product stewardship.
We have also consistently supported government and independent reviews of health issues related to vinyl products.
In recent public statements, we acknowledged the concerns as well as the assurances expressed by both the Food and Drug Administration and the National Toxicology Program's Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Re-production regarding the use of di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate-plasticized vinyl medical devices. We noted that both agencies hesitated to move against such products for fear that adequate alternatives may not yet exist. We are fully prepared to continue to cooperate with FDA and other agencies on programs to ensure protection of public health and safety.
We agree with Toloken that attacking one's attacker doesn't advance science, but someone ought to call to account those organizations that have made a career out of trying to eliminate all vinyl products and the additives in them regardless of what scientific studies show.
Now that FDA, CERHR, a Consumer Products Safety Commission review panel, the International Agency for Research on Cancer and other expert bodies have given the vast majority of uses of DEHP, diisononyl phthalate and other phthalates a vote of confidence, will the broad and sustained attacks desist? Will the vinyl attackers endorse the uses that regulatory experts have deemed carry negligible risk?
If not, perhaps Toloken and other Plastics News editorial writers will see fit to take them to task.