Good Science, Bad Politicians

"Sometimes people don't listen to the good science."

From the unlikeliest of sources, National Public Radio, proving that good reporting still exists once in awhile.

Morning Edition, April 1, 2009 · A new federal ban on chemical compounds used in rubber duckies and other toys isn't necessary, say the government scientists who studied the problem.The ban, which took effect in February, prohibits making or selling duckies and other children's products that contain chemicals called phthalates, which are used to make plastic soft. [SNIP]

The action came despite advice not to enact the ban from scientists at the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which regulates toys.

The commission opposed the ban because "there was not a risk of injury to children," says Dr. Maryland Wind, deputy associate executive director for health sciences at CPSC.

It reached that conclusion after studying phthalates in toys for more than 25 years and acting several times to make sure children were not exposed to even a slight risk from products that contain the chemicals. [SNIP]

Scientists from the FDA explained why they, too, had concluded that the ban was not necessary to protect the public.

But lawmakers had other ideas.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said the ban was needed because phthalates had been "linked to serious reproductive defects."

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) talked about "potential harm to testosterone development and the male reproductive tract."

And during hearings, the lawmakers heard from scientists representing groups that want the government to ban all PVC plastics from children's products.

The frightening allegations helped pass the law banning phthalates.

Perhaps the most telling sentence in the entire mess is "But lawmakers had other ideas."