Flashback – Consumer Protection Gone Crazy

Back in 2011 I explained how new legislation regarding credit cards led to the companies increasing fees and interest rates. More recently, about a year ago, I once again emphasized how well intentioned consumer protection laws often have unintended consequences. Here is that entry from August 23 of last year.

[Last time I wrote about a lawmaker introducing a bill to protect Americans from Internet addiction, a condition that has no formal definition or diagnosis. Whenever a problem or “epidemic” arises, someone in power decides that there is a government solution to change the conditions or behavior. (Even when the government was the source of the problem.)

People are not trusted to solve their own problems, often because they don't. In the end everyone loses some freedom because of the bad decisions of a few. It takes critical thinking to identify the root of the problem and personal responsibility to own the solution instead of passing it off to a higher power.

This dynamic was reinforced a few days ago when a package arrived from one of those catalogs that frequently appear in the mailbox. In the package was a gift pen, similar to those used by various companies as promotional items. It was an ordinary retractable ballpoint similar to those from a dentist’s office or a job fair but with one difference. It came in a plastic sleeve with the words, “WARNING: Cancer and Reproductive Harm” followed by a web address.

The address led to the California Proposition 65 page. “The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment is establishing this website to provide the public with information on chemicals, products and locations often associated with Proposition 65 warnings.  These warnings inform Californians about their exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.” 

Notice that the above statement reads, “cause cancer” not “may cause cancer,” implying that they have studies to definitively prove a direct causal link. Since the list includes over 900 chemicals, that is a doubtful assertion. Looking at one random example: “The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) lists coconut oil diethanolamine condensate (cocamide DEA) as an IARC Group 2B carcinogen, which identifies this chemical as possibly carcinogenic to humans."[Emphasis added] Apparently it only takes possibly to make the list. 

The full list includes a large number of arcane-sounding chemicals, e.g., Amikacin Sulfate and Zalcitabine, but it also includes alcoholic beverages, aspirin, tobacco smoke, nicotine and oral contraceptives.  

How helpful is this? Is tobacco smoke or nicotine a surprise? Why do Californians need the information and not everyone else? Coffee contains acrylamide, which is on the list, so last year a judge decided, "coffee sellers in the state should have to post cancer warnings.” But in “2016, the cancer agency of the World Health Organization moved coffee off its ‘possible carcinogen’ list.”

This isn’t science; it’s judges and lawmakers deciding what should or should not be on a list. It’s “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” gone crazy. People don’t have time to be careful about 900 chemicals and all the products they go into. I have no idea which part of the promotional pen I should worry about or how it might hurt me. Tanning beds and sunlight are not on the list only because they are not chemicals. The situation is so bad that my seven-year-old granddaughter upon returning from a vacation in San Diego commented about how silly it was seeing all the warning signs everywhere coffee was sold.

Not only is this not helpful, it adds cost. The extra warning labels and signs cost money. It is costly to reformulate products to avoid having to post warnings, or worse, to avoid the threat from lawyers, “some of whose businesses are built entirely on filing Proposition 65 lawsuits” on behalf of “straw man plaintiffs." The cost of these nuisance consequences comes back on all of us. (Economic understanding reminds us there is no magic money tree to make up the difference. It all gets passed along to the end consumer.)

Does the list ever shrink or become reasonable, or do we get to the point where everything needs a progressively more meaningless label? I’m sure many people thought this was a great idea back in 1986 not realizing that they may be creating a monster.]

Flashback – Plastic Straws

I originally called this one "How Much We Take On Faith." At the time it was clear that many information sources are not reliable, a notion reconfirmed by many experiences since then. Politicians, advocates and pundits confidently make assertions to support their agendas. We can never tell what is true, what is pure fantasy, or how much is just so much hot air. 

 

Plastic straw mandates are examples of many symbolic acts. Using bad data or no data, authorities try to fool us, and probably themselves, into believing that they are really making a difference. They want to appear caring about all the right things, then garner enough support to pass laws and regulations forcing everyone to comply.

 

Here is the piece from 2018.

[The other day I got into a discussion with a colleague about plastic, which led to a comment about the amount of plastic in the ocean and what a problem it is. My response that only about 1% of the ocean plastic comes from the United States was met with stares of disbelief. Instead of arguing the point with someone who firmly believed the opposite, I offered to send references. The next day I emailed an explanation of the situation from a number of reputable sources.

From National Geographic in a story about the large accumulation of waste in the Pacific: "Microplastics make up 94 percent of an estimated 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic in the patch. But that only amounts to eight percent of the total tonnage. As it turns out, of the 79,000 metric tons of plastic in the patch, most of it is abandoned fishing gear—not plastic bottles or packaging drawing headlines today."

My next stop was a Bloomberg article with a sub headline of: “Skipping straws may be hip. But there are much better ways to fight pollution.” They first point out that the original estimate, the one activists and news media cite with confidence, that Americans use 500 million straws per day is based on highly dubious data that came from a small survey by a nine-year-old for a grade school science project. Then it was spread without any attempt to verify it by those who wanted to emphasize the problem. "Similarly, two Australian scientists estimate that there are up to 8.3 billion plastic straws scattered on global coastlines. Yet even if all those straws were suddenly washed into the sea, they'd account for about .03 percent of the 8 million metric tons of plastics estimated to enter the oceans in a given year.” So what we have been told about straws being the problem is a gross exaggeration.

A Science report on marine pollution verifies exactly what I was saying with a table on their site,  Table 1 titled: “Waste estimates for 2010 for the top 20 countries ranked by mass of mismanaged plastic waste (in units of millions of metric tons per year).” The US is listed at the bottom of the table with a contribution of .09% – less than one percent. That same information is repeated in pie charts on other sites.

So all this fuss about banning straws is bogus. It is a feel-good exercise that grows because so few people take the time to do the research. Ocean pollution is a problem, but the advocates and politicians are misinformed and are passing along that poor information to the rest of us – and we are buying it.

This and many other trends and movements have become their own religions. They depend on blind faith. The preachers stand up and confidently make ignorant and absurd allegations about chemicals, food safety, pollution, economics and a host of other subjects. The general population takes it on faith, chanting “amen” in all the right places. This leads to poor policies and results in those responsible for poor policies being reelected on the basis of making their followers feel good about themselves, about how pure they are, about how caring they are. It’s much more about ego and self esteem than science or actually saving the planet.

In reality these policies deliver little or no benefit and may have unknown side effects or unforeseen consequences. They are at best a waste of time. Critical thinking is the answer, but no one wants to deal with facts or reality.] Feeling good is more important.

GMO Green Beans?

On a weekly shopping trip we picked up some whole green beans, a favorite at our house. As she opened them later, my wife commented that they were labeled as Non-GMO. The GMO labeling is a subject of mockery in the family – as is gluten-free, natural, organic and a number of other scientifically meaningless qualifications when it comes to healthy eating for most people.

The first thing I wondered was whether anyone was selling genetically modified green beans. This was not an idle thought. I have previously written about orange juice and tomatoes labeled as non-GMO when, in fact, it is impossible to buy the modified version of either.

I looked up “GMO green beans” and discovered this website which answers the question directly saying, “To date, no GMO green beans have been commercialized.” They go on to say that researchers in Brazil are trying to get approval to work on it. Until then, “breeders of green beans in many world areas are also applying traditional plant breeding methodologies to develop new varieties with better combinations of characteristics…to improve yield, eating quality, and resistance to fungal, bacterial and viral diseases…to enhance the green beans grown and eaten by people, as a component of nutritious and healthful diets.” They are using the slow, old-fashioned method of modification that no one is afraid of.

Because that site seemed to be in favor of GMO technology, I continue to look for more evidence from a source on the other side. The Seattle Organic Restaurants site lists the “Top 20 Foods and Products that have been Genetically Modified.” Green beans are not on the list.

A site called superfoodly asks: "Are Canned Beans Healthy? Here’s The Biggest Safety Danger.” GMOs are not mentioned. The biggest danger according to them is BPA in the packaging. But as they report on it, they admit, “what the science suggests about it doesn’t appear to match the risk perceived by the public.” What is believed to be the number one danger turns out to be a case of ignorance. “Even when rats were fed up to 70,000 times the concentration of BPA that the typical American eats, they didn’t experience a change in hormone levels, weight, or reproductive orders.”

How does Delmonte respond to the challenge? Their website states, “The FDA, USDA, World Health Organization, and the American Medical Association have concluded that products containing genetically engineered ingredients are safe. Even though there are no health risks (allergens or negative nutrients) associated with GMOs, we decided to provide information about GMOs in our products to consumers so that they can make informed choices.” Apparently the informed choice is whether or not to avoid something that has been deemed safe. That makes no sense except by understanding that the job of Delmonte is to sell beans and other food, not to educate the public; and they can certainly sell more by appealing to unwarranted fears of GMOs stirred up by rumors and other misinformation, some of which is purposely disseminated by parties with a financial interest.

That explains why they take a similar stance on BPA. “Cans are lined with epoxy resins, of which BPA is a component…to make the plastic flexible so it completely covers the inside of the can. Based on extensive research, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and many other regulatory agencies around the world have concluded that BPA is safe to use in packaging.” But Delmonte goes on to proudly announce that they don’t use it anyway.

It doesn’t end there. The other side of the label at the top says, “With Natural Sea Salt,” just another phrase with implied (but not real) health benefits targeting superstitious food shoppers. 

The real motive for all these enticing myths displayed on the packaging may be to distract shoppers from the writing on the bottom of the label – 14.5 oz. on a can that used to be 16 oz. That’s the real deception – shrinking packaging with or without BPA raises the price.

This is not intended to pick on Delmonte, everyone does it. It’s easy selling fake benefits to the ignorant public, and it will persist as long as Americans continue to get their health and science information from celebrities, charlatans and social media.

Stoking the Fear

Teenage boys are not afraid of dying – or at least don’t think about it very much. That’s evident by the number of stupid-trick videos that have been posted over the years. Everyone else though, seems to be thinking about it quite often – if not consciously, it lingers just below the surface making them a target for all the shocking news and advertising that comes our way. (Note that I often lump news and advertising together. The tactics of one is often to scare us into buying things; the tactics of the other is often to scare us into staying tuned in for the next story.)

One such scary story comes from a Duke University study. “Children living in homes with all vinyl flooring or flame-retardant chemicals in the sofa have significantly higher concentrations of potentially harmful semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) in their blood or urine.” This is a family of chemicals widely used in the manufacture of electronics, furniture and building materials. Exposure is widespread among adults and children.

Exposure to the chemical used as a flame retardant in sofas “has been linked in laboratory tests to neurodevelopmental delays, obesity, endocrine and thyroid disruption, cancer and other diseases” and that used in vinyl flooring “has been linked to respiratory disorders, skin irritations, multiple myeolma and reproductive disorders.” 

Remember, the term linked to does not mean causes and laboratory tests are usually a very early step. At Duke they studied only 203 children over 3 years to see if the presence of the kind of sofa and flooring led to increased levels in their blood and urine, not to find any link. They assumed the link already existed based on previous studies. 

It’s likely that most people never heard of SVOCs or those specific chemicals before. But the news agencies pass this along as if it poses an imminent danger and may require immediate action. What are the alternatives – non flame retardant sofas? Vinyl flooring replaced linoleum that contained asbestos. Clearly this has to wind its way through the scientific community to establish safe exposure levels before it can make sense to anyone. Yet the news is quick to report it without qualification.

But it gets even nuttier!

About the same time I found the headline: “Toasters may expose you to more pollution than a busy intersection.” That’s right, that seemingly innocent appliance that we put bread in and push down the handle is trying to kill you. “A new study from the University of Texas at Austin warns that toasters, candles, and other household smoke makers expose people to more air pollution than standing in a busy intersection does.” Included on the list of indoor polluters are house cleaners, air purifiers and sprays, but toasters are the worst offender unless we only lightly singe the bread.

The information from both sources that I linked to also appeared in several other places. Some reporting was more thorough than others – it probably depends on time and space available. The main point, however, seemed to be an attempt to capture attention by warning that our sofas and toasters are hidden dangers.

Think of all the universities in the US and all the professors and graduate students at these universities looking for things to study, competing for funding and attention. They get attention by coming to ominous-sounding conclusions. A study saying, “Don’t worry about your air purifier” wouldn’t fly. That behavior by the researchers makes it so easy for the news media to fill space with dire warnings any time they want to. Without critical thinking and perspective a person could easily worry himself to death about all those things that might kill him.

Bogus Teflon Warnings

Back on July 10 as I was reviewing my favorite posts, I recommended questioning and researching to find evidence of scientific findings.  This is strong behavior when making health-related decisions.  The opposite, and what seems to have become prevalent with the ability for social media to spread misinformation far and wide and instantaneously, is the habit of basing health-related decisions and beliefs on rumor, gossip and hearsay.

This came up again recently as a neighbor remarked that she was replacing her old cookware because the Teflon was chipped or cracked.  She warned us that eating food cooked in those pots causes cancer.

Poor behavior on my part would have been to accept this information without question.  I had a vague feeling I had heard it somewhere before.  Also, Teflon, a brand name for polytetrafluoroethylene, is a manmade chemical – warnings about the dangers of which fly around the Internet almost every day.  Even the word chemical alone is a red flag to many.  As a result, this assertion may seem reasonable to the average person.

Despite the apparent validity of this warning, positive behavior on my part would be to do a little research before throwing away old, possibly perfectly good cookware based on the word of a neighbor (or a celebrity or a newscaster or even a scientist or doctor with expertise in a different field).  It didn’t take much time to find what I needed.

According to a website called homeguides, “The Food and Drug Administration advises that the chips [in Teflon cookware] pose no health hazard when they pass through the body.”  Apparently, most of the fear is derived from another manmade chemical, PFOA, which is used in the process of making Teflon.  “However, the Environment Protection Agency reports that Teflon doesn’t actually contain PFOA so there is no health hazard from using it.”

It’s smart to check more than one source, and with the Internet at one’s fingertips it’s easy to do.  The American Cancer Society lists Teflon and PFOA as a subject for discussion.  They state clearly, “Teflon itself is not suspected of causing cancer.”

“Other than the possible risk of flu-like symptoms from breathing in fumes from an overheated Teflon-coated pan, there are no known risks to humans from using Teflon-coated cookware. While PFOA is used in making Teflon, it is not present (or is present in extremely small amounts) in Teflon-coated products.”

Furthermore on the subject of PFOA itself, they look to the experts citing the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization.  “One of its goals is to identify causes of cancer. IARC has classified PFOA as ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans’ (Group 2B), based on limited evidence in humans.”  But the EPA’s position is equally vague:  There is “suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity, but not sufficient to assess human carcinogenic potential.”

What we have then is an urban-myth cancer scare over something that is perfectly safe because it is only peripherally associated with something that may (or may not) be a problem.  To find this out takes only about 15 minutes.  Why wouldn’t everyone do it and promote the spread of valid information?

It’s much easier to listen to neighbors, celebrities and the media (social and otherwise) and get faulty information, worry needlessly about fantasy dangers and put hopes into fantasy cures.  In this case, we only throw out perfectly good pots.  But the typical reaction in America on so many similar subjects is to jump to conclusions based on endorsements and opinion rather than evidence.  We then become prey to advertisers using these false notions to sell more of what we don’t need with features that add no value.

If the Burgers Don’t Kill You, the Packaging Will!

A few days ago I turned to CNN Health to find this distressing headline: “Report finds chemicals in one-third of fast food packaging.”  First, everyone knows chemicals are bad.  Just put the word in a headline and you get attention.  Second, everyone knows that fast food is bad.  It makes you fat and sick.  Put both in a research report and news organizations are bound to jump on it, seeing another opportunity to put everyone in a panic, hopefully guaranteeing that they will comeback for more scary details.  Journalism today is about getting pageviews. And there is no better way to do that than with a hard-hitting health scare.

For the record, my Merriam-Webster defines chemical as a substance obtained by a chemical process.  Such a process may occur by itself, as for example burning or rusting, or be caused by an outside force.

This article, “Everything is Made of Chemicals,” describes a cup of tea as a “cocktail of butanol, iso amyl alcohol, hexanol, phenyl ethanol, tannin, benzyl alcohol, caffeine, geraniol, quercetin, 3-galloyl epicatchin, 3-galloyl epigallocatchin and inorganic salts.”  So there are many good chemicals, but the use of the word, as in “chemical warfare” or “chemical dependency” has given it an automatic negative connotation.

As for fast food itself, all things in moderation applies.  The 2004 documentary “Super Size Me” did a lot to spread the rumor that all fast food is bad.  But since then it has been debunked by many and characterized as a joke, a stunt, and full of misinformation.  In 2014 an Iowa high school science teacher actually lost weight on a McDiet proposed by his students.  Furthermore, the Super-Size-Me experiment has never been reproduced.  But the original misperception thrives.

So the headline itself, calculated to portray scary health news, is based on a couple of widely held but basically false beliefs.

Now back to the story.  The report featured in the CNN headline came from the Silent Spring Institute, not the most objective source.  It said researchers found fluorinated chemicals in one-third of the fast food packaging tested.  They took 400 samples of packaging from 27 fast food chains.  That seems like a decent sample size, but then they split it into 6 categories.  Now we have sample sizes of about 65 to 70 making it far less reliable for drawing generalizable conclusions.

In conclusion they tell us, “The packaging your food comes in could also have a negative impact on your health” because similar chemicals that have “largely been phased out” have been “linked to” several diseases.  That’s not exactly how they put it, but when you put all the information together it’s hardly very persuasive.

Fluorinated chemicals are used in fast food packaging for their grease-repellent properties, but are also used safely in many different products from carpeting to auto parts, from hospital gowns to the surface of touchscreens, from body armor and other protective clothing to nonstick cookware.

With such a variety of applications, it almost seems silly even to ask how we can protect ourselves from them in fast food packaging, but they do.  "For people who wish to reduce their exposure to these chemicals, they may be able to take some steps ... for instance, by taking the food out of the packaging sooner rather than later.”

Of course standing in most fast food restaurants, it’s easy to observe how little time the food stays in the packaging.  When it comes off the grill or out of the fry basket it goes into the packaging and the cashier generally puts it immediately into the bag and hands it to the customer.  Even if you drive all the way home to eat, the exposure time (to perhaps dangerous chemicals) is probably less than twenty minutes.

People are likely get more exposure from their carpets, touchscreens and nonstick cookware.  But that’s not the point when a journalist can compose scary headlines or a research group can use it as a reason to entice more donors.  Critical thinking, People!

Confirmation Bias

I heard a commentator recently describe Americans as living in silos.  They get their news from their favorite source, and it is their favorite source because it tells them something they already believe.  They choose their friends based on how much they agree with them.  They “un-friend” those on social media who disagree with their own world view.  They just live in the silo where everything is peaceful and calm, where there is never conflict or disagreement, but where also there is no longer any growth or learning.  The point of the comment was politics, but these days everything is politicized and the comment can easily be extended to all aspects of life and daily decisions.  This activity of believing what is comfortable and consistent with current beliefs and rejecting or ignoring what is not, is known as confirmation bias.

Here is another example of the kind of information that will be accepted by some and rejected out of hand by others.  NBC reports that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) said glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, was unlikely to cause cancer in humans.  Now policymakers in Europe must decide whether to extend the current approval period beyond the end of the year.  This comes while environmental groups have been calling for a ban and some businesses have begun to limit its use.  But the EFSA spokesman says:  "This has been an exhaustive process - a full assessment that has taken into account a wealth of new studies and data…unlikely that this substance is carcinogenic."

EFSA scientists worked with experts from EU member states and focused specifically on glyphosate, whereas the study supporting the environmentalists’ objections assessed groups of related chemicals.   Therefore, the findings of toxicity could be related to the other chemicals or some interaction. 

What is interesting in this case is that the EU is typically far less tolerant than the US when it comes to environmental issues, choosing to err on the side of extreme caution, for example their stance on GMOs.  Therefore, for them to make a statement exonerating (in a sense) Roundup is more significant than if it came from another source.  (This information is not inconsistent with my Master Gardener training which does not discourage the use of glyphosate, as long as it is used for the proper purpose according to the label instructions.)

Nevertheless, some groups will dismiss this report out of hand.  The great thing about confirmation bias is that it requires no evidence.  In fact when you disagree, evidence becomes a nuisance.