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.
