Adding a reportedly cancer-causing plasticizer to your holiday menu has now been proven to be good for the boys at your table. Just make sure you don't give any to the girls. Seriously, it's science. Well, at least it's statistics. Sort of.
We've talked before here before about a concept called "regrettable substitutions" involving dangerous chemicals used in the manufacturing or decorating of promotional products. The reality is that changing from one ingredient to another sometimes doesn't make the product either better or safer.
Now, according to an article entitled "Anatomy of a Statistical Meltdown," by Trevor Butterworth, director of Sense About Science, USA, when it comes to bisphenol A (BPA), the media suffers from a case of "regrettable statistics." Butterworth outlines what he calls a “statistical meltdown” when it comes to the battle over the effect of BPA that now has stretched on for 17 years. The FDA has never really changed its position on the chemical long used to soften plastics for promotional products, and Butterworth takes to task the statistical accuracy of a study: Impact of Early-Life Bisphenol A Exposure on Behavior and Executive Function in Children, published in Pediatrics by the NCBI/NIM/NIH about it. The study itself is criticized by being faulty at the most basic level: its design. It's a fascinating article and a short read, if this topic is of interest to you, I highly recommend you check it out.
In a nutshell, if you are reading this post, you have been exposed to BPA. If you are a woman reading this post, the study suggests you have statistical proof as an excuse for the tantrums at three years old that likely resulted in you being put in "time out" on a regular basis. Taking the potentially fuzzy math a little further, Butterworth says that, based on the results of the study, you could even believe that exposure to BPA was actually good for boys. Crazy, isn't it?
As mentioned above, the Sense About Science position was substantiated by a statistician in the Department of Psychology at George Mason University who said there were fundamental problems with the statistics upon which the study was based. He opined that the statistics fail in sample size, design, and proper consideration for standard error, among other problems.
Unfortunately, and the focus of this post, is that all too often when it comes to facts, sometimes the media doesn't care. That's evidenced by the fact that we saw headlines like this one from ABC News: "Plastics Chemical Tied to Aggression in Young Girls." The online article said, "The research showed that hyperactive, anxious, aggressive, and depressed behavior was more common in three-year-old girls who were exposed in the womb to bisphenol A than in boys of the same age." Reuters Health quoted the same study, saying, "In a new study of Cincinnati-area kids, girls exposed to higher levels of bisphenol A before birth had more behavioral problems and were more anxious and over-active than those only exposed to small amounts of the chemical." The study is faulty, for a number of reasons. Yet it continues to be cited by the media as a credible source, and continues to be something that the FDA does nothing to correct by altering its stand on the issue. Lamentable, to be sure.
Moving on, it's probably timely to note that the holiday shopping season kicks off this week with Black Friday sales and, according to the Consumer Technology Association, it's the biggest weekend of the year for new television purchases. While TV's aren't necessarily promotional products, the CPSC asked if we might boost awareness this week for a safety threat. Studies show that consumers who purchase new flat screens typically don't anchor them – even though the manufacturer most often expressly advises they do so – and then they move their old tube televisions to a bedroom, often on top of a dresser or table. Those older TV's are also rarely anchored. What parents don't consider when they opt out of anchoring these TV's, flat screen or otherwise, is that they are exposing their children to what could be a very serious, sometimes even life-threatening, risk of injury.
We will be working collaboratively with the CPSC on an upcoming project to raise safety awareness, and we’ll have more to say about that in the coming weeks. In the meantime, have a safe and happy holiday!
Jeff Jacobs has been an expert in building brands and brand stewardship for more than 30 years. He’s a staunch advocate of consumer product safety and has a deep passion and belief regarding the issues surrounding compliance and corporate social responsibility. He is the executive director of Quality Certification Alliance, the industry’s only non-profit dedicated to helping suppliers provide safe and compliant products. When he's not working, you can find him traveling the world with his lovely wife, working as a volunteer Guardian ad Litem, or sometimes even enjoying a cigar at his favorite local cigar shop. Follow Jeff on Twitter, or reach out to him at jeff@qcalliance.org.