# Styrene Concerns?



## KristaY (Aug 25, 2014)

My sister sent me this article a few minutes ago and I have to admit I didn't know styrene may be used as a fragrance ingredient. Is this now another concern we have to think about when choosing what fragrances to include in our body products?

http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2014/08/expert-panel-confirms-fragrance-ingredient-can-cause-cancer


----------



## Lindy (Aug 25, 2014)

That is the biggest fear mongering site on the net,  okay one of the biggest, there are some as bad and maybe 1 worse.  I take everything they say with a grain of salt.


----------



## KristaY (Aug 25, 2014)

Whew! Thanks, Lindy. I was thinking how difficult (if not impossible) it would be to actually find out if styrene is used by certain vendors, certain perfumers, certain scents.... I can make myself a bit crazy thinking of all that. If this information is truly accurate, I can see it becoming an issue down the road like phthalates are now. What is the stand on styrene use in Canada and the EU I wonder? They seem to be a bit ahead of the US in deciding more quickly on safe substances.


----------



## lenarenee (Aug 25, 2014)

Lindy said:


> That is the biggest fear mongering site on the net, okay one of the biggest, there are some as bad and maybe 1 worse. I take everything they say with a grain of salt.


 
Okay, how do you know this and can you teach me to be that discerning?


----------



## DeeAnna (Aug 26, 2014)

Well, for one thing, read the references cited in the article. No references? Big warning bell. If there are references, as in this article, then compare what the referenced information says vs. what the article says. Do they match? Or is the article selectively taking true facts out of context? Or is the reference cited but not actually incorporated into the article so the article seems as if it is well researched, but is not actually? 

Take this particular EWG article. The one study cited (the "2011 finding") is about occupational exposure of people working in the styrene industry. Yes, it looks like occupational exposure to styrene does increase the chances of certain types of cancer. No quibble there.

The study goes on to add, "...workers in certain occupations potentially are exposed to much higher levels of styrene than the general population. The greatest source of exposure for the general population is cigarette smoking, and daily styrene intake by the nonsmoking population is expected to be orders of magnitude lower than daily intakes for workers in occupations with high styrene exposure levels..."

Looking back at the EWG article, let's see how it incorporates this information. It says, "...Styrene also turns up in automobile exhaust, cigarette smoke and – you might be surprised to know – it might be lurking in the various sprays and liquids you’ll find in the cosmetic and cleaning aisles of your supermarket. That’s because it is an ingredient allowed in fragrances added to a wide variety of consumer products...." 

This article then goes on to specifically target the matter of styrene in fragrances. The article clearly uses the academic study to set the scene that "styrene = cancer" and then goes on without any scientific basis to conclude:

"...Besides cologne and other personal care products, fragrances are also used to scent household care products such as dish and laundry detergent. When you add up the number of products in your bathroom cabinets and under your kitchen sink that contain “fragrance” – and may contain styrene – the total could be many exposures to a substance we now know is 'reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.' " 

Where in the heck is THIS statement coming from? Is it supported by the academic study? I can't find that it does. What I do find is that it glosses over a big risk -- smoking -- that is boring to focus on a small risk that is going to be satisfyingly scary to the EWG readership -- just read the comments below the article for examples.

It is articles like this that create mass hysteria about certain products that later turn out to be relatively safe in moderate or low doses. The warnings about eating eggs is one example. Turns out eggs are fine for healthy folks. Or take the asbestos scare for another example. Turns out we don't get instant health problems from occasional light exposure to airborne asbestos -- you need to breathe the stuff for years to be at risk. 

We are far better served to eliminate risks that we know cause major problems -- smoking is a biggie -- than get up in arms about "big risks" artificially created by the media.


----------



## Susie (Aug 26, 2014)

^Everything DeeAnna said.

Plus you need to look at who wrote/published the original articles to judge for yourself whether they are biased or not.  For instance, I would take any article written or published by anyone in the tobacco industry saying that smoking is perfectly safe as being heavily biased.  Google those names if you don't know who they are.


----------



## lenarenee (Aug 28, 2014)

Susie and DeeAnna, thank you both for the reminder of basic research skills. For some reason, when I read stuff on the computer, I almost always dismiss it.  I prefer facts on paper i.e. books, magazines, papers. It's when I read those, I pay more attention - but then I grew up mostly pre-personal computers.

When you flatly declared the website to be fear-mongering, I realized that scrutinizing internet fluff from fact should be for anyone who spends at much time online as I do!

DeeAnna, a special thanks for taking the time to walk me through the process so I could learn by example!


----------



## Lindy (Aug 28, 2014)

Sorry for not answering before this.  Everything Deanna said, plus they have been known for years as being inaccurate.  I don't know why they choose to post such nonsense but they do.


----------



## DeeAnna (Aug 28, 2014)

Thinking about this stuff in a critical way is time consuming and difficult. No one, including me, is able to keep it all in context all the time. I don't always read the references, but I do try to keep my little "BS" antenna tuned in when I read articles like this one. 

I think many people swallow articles whole because the writing style is so "reasonable" and the references cited give the article the gloss of science. Without doing the thinking needed to put the article in context, our world view can easily get unintentionally skewed. Other people are so very, very certain their black and white interpretation of reality is perfectly accurate, so there's absolutely no point to spending any time seeing the various points of view on a matter. 

There is also the psychology of how all humans view risk. Voluntary risk is viewed as less dangerous and involuntary risk is viewed as more dangerous, even if statistics clearly show the opposite. For example, the risk of dying in a car crash is much, much higher than the risk of dying in an airplane crash. But people think nothing of driving a car (or motorcycle!) but refuse to fly. Why? Driving is a voluntary risk -- "I am driving my car, so I am in control of my fate". Flying is a situation where people put their safety in the hands of another, so their perception of apparent helplessness makes flying seem more risky.


----------



## Lindy (Aug 28, 2014)

I've seen articles where they have taken the MSDS out of context and try to prove the whole of the product is dangerous and not something if used at full strength.  If "they" were to be believed then even essential oils shouldn't be in our product because the MSDS warn of terrible things happening.  Have you ever put together a MSDS for your soap?  In the UK they have to and believe me if "they" got a hold of that OMG we would never use soap again because it just must be dangerous.  If you get it in your eye you have to flush to for 20 minutes, so therefore it is toxic....


----------



## Susie (Aug 28, 2014)

And it may be wrong of me, but once some organization hits my "not trusted" list, they stay there.  I know that even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then, but I choose not to waste my time reading stuff from someone I already class as inaccurate.


----------

