Industry Refutes Silent Spring Institute Study

Stakeholders in the household and personal care industry are circling the wagons to refute findings in a paper co-written by the Silent Spring Institute.

The study, titled “Endocrine Disruptors and Asthma-Associated Chemicals in Consumer Products,” will be published today in the journal, Environmental Health Perspectives.

According to its website, Silent Spring Institute began in 1994 after members of the Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition called for a scientifically sound investigation into elevated breast cancer rates on Cape Cod. They founded “a laboratory of their own” and named it Silent Spring Institute in tribute to Rachel Carson, author of“Silent Spring.”

The American Cleaning Institute (ACI – formerly The Soap and Detergent Association) has expressed disappointment with research, which wrongly raises unfounded safety concerns over cleaning products and ignores enhanced efforts to communicate with consumers about product ingredients.

ACI said that the paper distorts the established safety of ingredients used in cleaning products by inappropriately equating their detection with health issues.

“An enormous amount of research, development and testing takes place before cleaning products hit the shelves,” said Richard Sedlak, ACI executive vice president, technical and international affairs. “Detailed safety assessments are conducted by companies throughout the life cycle of a product. In essence, safety is built into the DNA of cleaning product development and manufacturing.”

Sedlak added, “Despite the researchers’ insinuation of health concerns from the mere presence of these ingredients in everyday life, the research does not demonstrate that proper use of these products is contributing to health and safety problems. In reporting their results, the researchers failed to demonstrate the impact of their mixingingredients from multiple products into single samples may have had in compromising the analytical results. It’s apparent through Silent Spring Institute’s publicity materials that they are disparaging dozens of products and ingredients that contribute to better hygiene, health and living every day.”

ACI also rebutted criticisms about the supposed lack of available information about cleaning product ingredients.

The Personal Care Products Council said the study again demonstrates the group’s lack of understanding of safety science.Equating the mere presence of certain chemicals in products with potential harm is wrong and needlessly scares consumers about products formulated with ingredients that have a wealth of scientific data to support their safety.

“The results of this study are not new or surprising and should not alarm consumers.The mere presence of those chemicals identified does not mean they are harmful,” said Linda Loretz, PhD, senior scientist and director of safety and regulatory toxicology for the Council.”Cosmetics and personal care products companies formulate their products to ensure that the amounts of ingredients used are within safety limits that have been established by scientific and regulatory bodies around the world.”

The report contains several key flaws with the methodology, including: 1) no criteria for the list of chemicals identified as “endocrine disruptors” or “asthma-associated” is provided in the study; 2) products were inappropriately tested together in batches, so no conclusions can be drawn about the results for any specific product; and 3) the analysis also provides no consideration for the potency, dose or exposure levels of the ingredients, according to PCPC.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC) also released a statement in response to the study.

“We are disappointed that the Silent Spring Institute would make unfounded claims about the health effects of very low-levels of government-approved chemicals used in everyday consumer products without facts to support their claims. As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has stated, the level of exposure to a chemical is relevant, not its mere presence. Additionally, Silent Spring claims a relationship between certain chemicals in consumer products and asthma, without providing adequate scientific information to draw such a connection.”

Also sending out its own warning this morning was the International Fragrance Association North America and SOCMA.

“This study presents a clear example of biased, advocacy-based research,” says William Troy, Ph.D., scientific advisor to the International Fragrance Association North America. “It is a repackaging of older information and the methodology used defies basic principles and standards of scientific protocols and investigations. The advice to consumers based on study findings is simply wrong.”

“IFRA North America members, who design and manufacture scents for many of the products listed in the study, stand by the safety of fragrances used in consumer products,” said Jennifer Abril, president, IFRA North America.”The global fragrance industry has a superior safety track record and has always taken a responsible and pro-active approach to the safety of materials used, continuously analysing and reviewing them for their effects on consumer health and the environment,” said Abril.