A March 23, 2005 Wall Street Journal article by Jim Carlton informs readers that a "study" by an environmental group provides "fresh evidence of a potential pathway by which certain chemicals end up in people."
Specifically, this "study" concluded that there were dangerous chemicals found in household dust--chemicals that were known to pose risks to people because they caused adverse effects in animal studies "including damage to sexual development and impairment of the hormone system." These chemicals allegedly were deposited by the use of pesticides and flame-retardants, non-stick frying pans and other consumer products such as plastic shower curtains and electrical appliances.
One part of the article read as if it were directly out of the humor site TheOnion.com: Mr. Carlton noted the alleged dangers of household cleaners with alkylphenols, "a chemical class that has been linked to sexual deformities in trout." (Sexually impaired fish?)
Here we have yet another story that communicates the false but standard generic message to consumers: "We are constantly exposed to traces of dangerous manmade chemicals; our health is in jeopardy, and we have to learn how to reduce our exposure to these toxins or we are in big trouble."
Very likely those reading this article--and respecting the quality of work of the Wall Street Journal--assumed that a) this study was scientifically done, published and peer reviewed and b) it was conducted by a scientifically qualified research team with no other agenda than to advance scientific knowledge about how to make our world safer and healthier. After all, there was nothing in the article to suggest the contrary.
The reality, however, is that the "study" was actually simply a booklet prepared by three members of an environmental advocacy group called Clean Production Action. The "study" was not peer reviewed. Indeed the website for this advocacy group carries no mention of any scientists at all. This is a group (funded by the Tides Foundation, like many environmental advocacy groups) with a clear agenda, one that was never mentioned: to target chemical companies as the cause of disease and to retreat from all types of technology, from agricultural chemicals to Teflon to cleaning products to modern cosmetics. A legitimate, peer-reviewed study in the New England Journal of Medicine could not have received more glowing coverage than did this report from an advocacy group cloaked in shadow, its Board of Directors not even listed on its web pages.
True, Mr. Carlton did make the obligatory call to "the other side"--quoting a spokesman for the American Chemistry Council, a trade group based in Arlington, Virginia. But the article itself comes across as featuring a legitimate, mainstream scientific group with its "study" being dismissed by a corporate shill who is just defending all these hazardous chemicals because that is his job.
Consider a hypothetical mirror-image scenario: A scientific panel releases a peer-reviewed study indicating that the levels of chemicals found in household dust are minimal and that there is no evidence suggesting the mere presence of these chemicals in dust poses any known hazard to human health. First, it is highly unlikely that such a study would get three columns of coverage in the Wall Street Journal. Second, even if it did, the organization sponsoring the study would be sliced and diced and dissected to "expose" their funding, true agenda and "industry connections."
Why do self-appointed environmental activists with their anti-industry agendas get a free ride at the Wall Street Journal?
