By Julie Gunlock
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Typically environmental organizations target consumers
with overwrought warnings of how some everyday product or activity is
destroying the world and threatening their health. Yet now, activists are
turning their targets toward major retailers. These companies should reject
these scare tactics, which will harm not only their businesses, but consumers
too.
The “Mind the Store” campaign, the latest initiative of a
radical environmental organization, pressures the nation’s top ten largest
retailers to remove products from store shelves that contain, in any amount, a
list of one hundred chemicals the organization deems hazardous. Following the
alarmism playbook, the organization claims these chemicals are linked to a
variety of frightening health problems like hormone disruption, cancer, and
birth defects despite the overwhelming body of scientific evidence to the
contrary.
Alarmism about chemicals is nothing new. Environmental
groups have long disseminated their exaggerated claims through the media to
consumers in the hopes that Americans would be scared into altering their
purchasing habits and would start demanding chemical-free products.
This strategy had some success. Bisphenol-A, a chemical
used to make plastics more durable and to prevent bacterial contamination in
canned food, is no longer used in certain products. Why? Not because BPA is
unsafe—it has been used in products for over 60 years and has been declared
safe by every major international health agency—but because faced with myriad
looming state and local bans and restrictions on the chemical, manufacturers
actually asked the FDA to ban its use in certain baby products. From the
manufacturers’ standpoint, it’s far easier to face one outright ban of even
this useful, perfectly safe and reliable chemical, than to try to comply with
thousands of regulations.
Yet, in this sluggish economy, environmental groups have
found that fear mongering is less effective than it once was. Americans appear
less willing to pay more for products based on flimsy science. Consequently,
these groups turned their attention to the retailers--demanding retailers stop
offering certain products. The logic goes: if we can’t scare consumers into
behaving, we’ll take away their choices.
Americans who assume such groups are harmless
distractions might be shocked to learn what compliance with the “Mind the
Store” campaign actually means. Thousands of common items would be removed from
store shelves and would become hard to find. In their place will be higher
priced alternatives which at best don’t work as well and spoil easily, and at
worst cause an uptick in food borne illnesses, skin irritations, and other
infections as food and many other products are left vulnerable to dangerous
bacteria.
Sure, ultimately alternative, chemical-free products
might improve in price and quality as they compete for market-share, but it’s
worth asking: will manufacturers be interested in developing new products when
they might be targeted by similar campaigns in the future? And how long will
this overhaul take? Likely years, considering the hoops through which
manufacturers have to jump to bring new products to market. Meanwhile, people
will be forced to pay more to use inferior products.
That’s a fact often lost in the conversation about
chemicals. Organizations vilify them, and suggest that their benefits are
negligible and use is unnecessary. Yet these chemicals actually make products
better, safer, more durable, longer lasting, and a lot more affordable—which is
why they became so widespread in the first place.
For instance, among the chemicals the campaign wants
removed are phthalates, formaldehyde, and certain flame retardants. While the
anti-chemical activists will tell you those hard-to-pronounce words are just
harmful additives, the truth is phthalates are added to plastics to make toys
less breakable, and therefore, less harmful to children. That’s important to
parents who worry their children could choke on shards of a broken plastic toy.
Flame retardants, which are now common in furniture and building materials, are
largely responsible for the sharp decline in household fires since the 1970s.
Formaldehyde, which is used in personal care products, helps prevent bacterial
growth.
Consumers who want to purchase products free of certain
chemicals are able to do so since there is no shortage of alternative products
already in the marketplace. Yet, consumers deserve other options too: the
option to make use of the most-advanced new technologies and substances, which
have typically been subject to aggressive government oversight and testing.
Consumers may not be the direct targets of the “Mind the
Store” campaign, but they have a lot at stake. They should encourage stores to
reject the radical environmentalists’ strong arm tactics and tell those groups
to mind their own business.
No comments:
Post a Comment