Phthalates: Are They Safe?

By: CBSNews

Watch the Segment »

Web Extras

Lance Armstrong competes in the Ironman Panama 70.3. triathlon in Panama City, Sunday Feb. 12, 2012. The race consists of a 1.2-mile swim, a 56-mile bike ride and a 13.1-mile run. (AP Photo/Arnulfo Franco)

Woldenberg says the law is good intentions run amok, and he points out that Congress overruled the findings of the CPSC, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Food and Drug Administration, which say the levels we're exposed to every day are safe.

The CPSC, which studied phthalates in toys twice, even had volunteers chew on them to see if phthalates oozed out. So why all the alarm bells? It all started with experiments on rats.

Dr. Richard Sharpe in Edinburgh Scotland, one of the leading phthalate researchers in the world, exposed pregnant rats to phthalates and produced a string of abnormalities in their male offspring.

"We see un-descended testes. We see this penis abnormality, hypospadias. We see smaller testes in adulthood, which means lower sperm counts," he told Stahl.

"So by giving pregnant rats phthalates you're inducing some of the same problems that human males are having and that you're seeing?" she asked.

"Yes," Dr. Sharpe replied.

There have been hundreds of studies on rats with similar findings.

But when Sharpe tried the same experiment on animals much closer to humans than rats - monkeys - he got an entirely different response. He tested phthalates on pregnant marmoset monkeys. And their offspring? Completely normal.

According to Sharpe, the monkeys had none of the effects found in humans or rats.

"If someone were to tell me there was a rat study that showed one thing, and monkey study that showed another thing, as a human, I would think that I'm closer to the monkey. I would lean toward that study, right?" Stahl remarked.

"Yeah. I would say take the species that's closest to man, and place more emphasis on that," Sharpe said.

So here's where we stand: a rat study on one hand, contradicted by a monkey study on the other. Then there's a string of new human studies that link phthalates to problems with masculinity, but each one of them is described as "small and preliminary." Even Dr. Swan, whose study led to Congress banning the phthalates in toys, speaks with uncertainty.

Asked if she's convinced phthalates are harmful to humans," Swan told Stahl, "I'm convinced that they pose a substantial possibility of harm. I cannot conclude they are harmful without confirmation of my study and additional data."

She says she needs more data to be sure, and yet she supports the congressional action on toys.

"The Consumer Product Safety Commission said that these toys have minimal to non-existent risk for these children," Stahl remarked.

"I don't think we have the data to conclude that," Swan replied.

"But they're saying you don't have the data to say the other thing, either: that they're harmful," Stahl pointed out.

"We have data of harm for the fetus; we have data of harm to a nursing infant - one study," Swan said.

13 Comments +

Add a Comment See all 13 Comments


by mva22 June 9, 2010 2:46 PM EDT: I was appalled to find phthalates in almost all children's products like shampoos, lotions, diaper creams, etc. Make SURE the stuff you use on your infants and children are phthalate free since they are so sensitive when young! I get my shampoos and diaper creams from www.greenhealthybaby.com; Reply to this comment


by Tennisgolfbike May 26, 2010 11:23 AM EDT: At what cost?

I operate a small toy company and we fully support the intent ( if not the execution) of the new toy laws; no company wants to put children at risk but most people don?t realize the huge financial and environmental costs that these new laws have had.

For example, we were very proud that our leading product was not only made in the USA but we could use up to 50% recycled PVC to make it.

New law goes into to effect:

- This causes us to operate at a loss so we released 4 American workers.
- We destroy and Landfill thousands of pounds of toys because it is illegal to recycle a toy.
- Most of the recycle PVC material we would had been used is now going to a landfill because we are forced to use 100% virgin PVC to comply with the new laws. Using virgin PVC drives up our material costs to the point where we can no longer afford to make this product in the USA so more American loses jobs?.; Reply to this comment


by essco-safetycheck May 24, 2010 8:17 PM EDT: Good story, but just the tip of the iceberg. I own an environmental testing and software company (Essco Safety Check) and we have been assisting people and businesses with knowledge of their environment and thus have become experts in regulations. Today I posted a blog ?Do you know what a consumer product is?? Phthalates are just part of the regulations, or lack thereof. Did you know that a toothbrush is not regulated for lead, like a children?s product? You can read my blog at www.blog.essco-safetycheck.com or visit our website at www.essco-safetycheck.com ?know what is in your environment? and mitigate harm.; Reply to this comment


by puristics May 24, 2010 8:11 PM EDT: Great article. I'm glad the conflicting evidence was brought forward on both sides. Endocrine disruption, hormone disruption and birth defects are complicated and with multivariate causes. There's no simple answer; there never is. Still, each of us should do what we can to be more aware of the potential dangers of pthalates and to take reasonable steps to avoid them in our daily lives. Eliminating exposure will be impossible but reducing exposure, particularly for the most vulnerable, is possible.; Reply to this comment

by extremophil May 24, 2010 9:17 AM EDT

Can't comment.....Phthalates on my keyboard...might kill me...

Reply to this comment


by rf35 May 24, 2010 10:33 AM EDT: No, they'll just turn you into a eunuch.

by theblamee May 23, 2010 9:38 PM EDT

Good reporting on a tough, tough subject.

Sure would be nice to know about some of these things, once and for all . . . like whether bacon either was (or was not) good for you. Maybe some day. Until then . . . there's nothing like relishing the "occasional" BLT.

Thank you for the informative piece.

Reply to this comment


by bbbaney May 24, 2010 2:22 PM EDT: Agreed. Good that you showed multiple 'sides' of the story. If there isn't conclusive evidence of harm as shown by the rats versus monkeys; then it is irresponsible to start legislating the use of alternatives, by banning phthlates. These alternatives are not drop in replacements across the board, and have not had risk assessments completed. Reactionary laws, such as the ones on toys, do have economic ramifications, and assuming business has unlimited resources to do full material testing of complex products is naive. A balance of EPA studies on targeted chemicals with industry cooperation, identification of viable alternatives also with apples to apples test data seems the best course. Just takes time.

by carlida May 23, 2010 9:32 PM EDT

Rearchers like Dr. Swan, who rely on government grants from the EPA, are another reason why we have become a nation of fearful, fatalistic, groupthinking victims as Michael Crichton wrote about in "State of
Fear". To maintain its budget and staffing the EPA relies on "intitiatives" to sustain itself. Many of its
consultants once worked for the EPA. It has also become a gold mine for class action attorneys.

Reply to this comment


by brianbwb2011 May 24, 2010 1:58 AM EDT: Right, so auto fumes are not harmful, there is no global warming, and mercury in the food chain is not harmful, neither is lead in contact surfaces, and thalidomide doesn't cause arm and leg deformities, right?

Or maybe you suggest that we should accept and ignore such hazards in the name of corporate profits. How about a little arsenic in your seafood, courtesy of BP, no problem, so long as they can make profit, right?

Hello, it is not about fear, it is about eliminating as many man-made dangers to ourselves as is possible.

To do that, it is first necessary to know what they are.


by curse914 May 24, 2010 9:08 AM EDT: Crichton was also exploiting that atmosphere of fear; or am I mistaken and he was giving his book away for free?


by ttweed03 May 24, 2010 9:41 AM EDT: Put on your thinking cap! Government grants--no financial interest by either grantor or the recipient in the outcome of studies--are infinitely preferable to the many scientists funded by the companies who have up to billions of dollars a year in revenue riding on that question, "Is it safe enough to use?" !!!

You can see the results of industry's efforts in the statement of the ACS chief in this story [paraphrased]: "Of course phthalates are safe enough, every govt agency in the world has said so!" In fact, every regulatory agency relies almost entirely on the toxicity studies funded by the manufacturer of the agent, while the infinitely more valuable research done by academic investigators is entirely excluded from regulatory risk assessment, via an exclusionary mechanism called "Good Laboratory Practices (GLP)". So much for precaution: we're experimenting on ourselves.


by iliketechnology May 24, 2010 4:57 PM EDT: Eliminating all man made dangers will bring us back to the dark ages. After all we would not have the computer chips to use for this communication, electricity or requires man made materials as well. Reasonable risk is what we should be balancing rather than fears that all man made materials are bad be definition.

Auto exhaust polution has been greatly reduced in the last decades, lead has been eliminated from fuel, plastics and paint in North America.