... a rather interesting summary about PVC quarrel...







God created all elements but one.
By Paul J Clucas

Rather than being a scientific controversy in the normal sense, i.e. between two opposing research groups; the controversy raging between Greenpeace and the PVC industry has been holding the public’s attention for over ten years, and is on the verge of significantly affecting our lives.

The controversy defined.

There is no single controversy surrounding PVC. Instead, PVC, a bulk commodity plastic that is one third chlorine, is, according to Greenpeace, guilty of many offences at all stages of its existence. The monomer, vinyl chloride, from which PVC is made, is highly carcinogenic. Further, the process by which the monomer is made results in the production of dioxins, nature’s most toxic substance. The polymer itself, so that it may be processed, requires the addition of stabilisers. Stabilisers are usually made form heavy metals such as lead or cadmium; compounds which are known to be environmental poisons. Flexible PVC also requires the addition of large amounts (up to 50% by weight) of volatile low molecular weight compounds called phthalates to give it flexibility. It has been shown that phthalates produce carcinogens in rodents, and are thought to be responsible for endocrine disruptive processes observed in the environment over recent years. Further, phthalates are not stable, and they, together with other additives, migrate out of PVC and into the environment over a period of years. The level of phthalates in the environment is increasing. Flexible PVC is commonly used in children’s toys. Disposal of PVC is also a tricky business. It is difficult to recycle because of its poor thermal stability and poor compatibility with other bulk plastics. Incineration results in the production of dioxins as well as hydrochloric acid gas. So as to remove the acid gas, salts are employed, and it has been shown that the amount of salt waste, in addition to the heavy metal stabiliser residues, constitutes a higher environmental risk than the original waste. Thus, more often than not, PVC is land-filled. The problem with land filling however is that phthalates and additives can migrate out into the environment over a period of time. Recently, vinyl chloride gas was detected in the surface soil of a number of land fills known to contain PVC waste.

A reply from the PVC Industry.

The PVC industry has replied to all of Greenpeace's accusations, often using convincing heavy weight scientific data to support their responses. Regarding the carcinogenic nature of the vinyl chloride monomer, the PVC industry point out that the type of liver cancer associated with this compound is highly specific, and has only ever been observed in small groups of PVC autoclave cleaners who were exposed to very high levels of vinyl chloride everyday for several years. Before the carcinogenic nature of vinyl chloride was identified, nearly thirty PVC workers had died from vinyl chloride related liver cancer. Concerning the production of dioxins during vinyl chloride manufacture, the PVC industry points out that, if the process is carefully monitored, then the same dioxins are destroyed at a later stage of the same process, resulting in a net dioxin production of zero. Greenpeace disputes this, and has shown high levels of dioxin in the environment around PVC factories. However, the PVC industry is required by law to follow certain stringent emission guidelines, and therefore claims to regularly monitor the levels of dioxin emissions at its plants. From the viewpoint of additives, the PVC industry points out that heavy metal free stabilisers are available, such as calcium/zinc stabilisers, and even the new class of organic stabilisers that are entering the market. Further, the PVC industry claims that the phthalates used in flexible PVC are, despite affecting rodents, not carcinogenic in humans, and possess no endocrine disruptive properties. In terms of disposal, the PVC industry claims to be continually developing ways of improving the recyclability of its product. Also, incineration of PVC waste is not considered to be any more hazardous than the incineration of other forms of waste. In terms of land-filling, the PVC industry point out that a number of new reports have shown that rigid PVC is completely inactive, whereas it admits that flexible PVC will leach plasticiser and additives up to a certain level. Finally, the presence of vinyl chloride gas found in the surface soils of land fill sites is not related to PVC since PVC does not chemically break down into its monomer.

Consequences of the controversy for Government and industry.

The consequences of the PVC debate for the PVC industry have been profound. In Europe we are seeing significant efforts by both Government and industry to tackle the PVC problem. Recently, the Swedish Government decided to begin a voluntary phasing out of lead stabilisers (the most common heat stabiliser in PVC produced in Europe) from the turn of the century. Similar plans are already being discussed by the Dutch and Norwegian governments. Moreover, the Danish Government has banned the use of lead from 1st November 1999. With regard to PVC, all lead stabilisers are to be phased out between 1st November 2000 and 1st November 2002. Further, many large companies, such as IKEA, Nike, Disney, Mattel, and Hasbro have already stopped using PVC in its packaging and products because of the risks associated with phthalates and heavy metal stabilisers. Many toy retailers, such as Toys-R-Us, K-Mart, Warner Brothers Studio Stores, have removed PVC containing products from its shelves.

Consequences of the controversy for the public.

The chemical industry has never been popular with the public. Large industrial companies are perceived as being more interested in profits than the environment. Numerous environmental disasters followed by apparent industry cover ups have further fuelled public cynicism. The PVC industry has been late to respond to public concerns. At fault is industries attitude to the consumer. The PVC industry, perhaps in it’s scientific arrogance, seems only to care about being vindicated in the eyes of other scientific experts. Indeed, in an industrial forum, the PVC industry is almost in self-congratulatory mood; as far as it is concerned, the storm is over, all the questions have been answered, and PVC is a scientifically proven safe product. The public, because of it’s lack of interest, or understanding, of the hard scientific facts being presented by the PVC industry, remains unconvinced. In general, it perceives PVC as being a bad product, and supports an eventual phasing out.

Greenpeace and their scientific validity.

Greenpeace want a complete phase-out of chlorine related chemistry. Ideologically, they see chlorine containing chemicals as possessing the greatest threat to humans and the natural environment. Greenpeace’s basic premise is that if alternatives are available then it should be phased out today. Also, they want to see a phasing out of the largest industrial users of chlorine first. PVC is therefore an important cornerstone since it represents the largest industrial user of chlorine, and suitable alternatives, according to Greenpeace, are already available.
Over the last decade Greenpeace have published a large number of damning reports which are apparently supported by good scientific evidence. One major problem however is that the majority of Greenpeace’s funding is used for advertising campaigns, leaving little money for research. As a result of this, the experiments Greenpeace have performed are often viewed by industry as being crude and unscientific. One example in a recent report by Greenpeace concerned the toxicity of phthalate plasticisers to aquatic life. Greenpeace claimed that phthalates were toxic to marine life; a claim which was supported by a number of experiments in which high concentrations of phthalates were seen to give rise to toxic effects in fish. What Greenpeace failed to realize was that phthalates are virtually insoluble in water, the level of soluble phthalates being well below the level required to produce toxic effects in marine life. In reality, phthalates tend to aggregate in the sediment level below the water level posing no threat to fish life. Another example concerns a Greenpeace report exposing high levels of dioxins in river water in the vicinity of a PVC plant in Germany. What Greenpeace failed to notice was that the PVC plant was downstream from the site at which samples were taken. The formation of dioxins in flue gases during incineration has also been a subject of much heated debate. Greenpeace claimed that since PVC is the largest single source of chlorine in waste then it must be PVC that is responsible for dioxin formation. In a recent study however it was shown that dioxin formation is more strongly dependant upon the temperature at which incineration occurs than the composition of the waste being incinerated. Further, when the dioxin emissions of normal waste and PVC free waste were compared, no significant difference was detected. In a final test however, in which all sources of chlorine were removed, a substantial reduction in the production of dioxins was observed. It was suggested that table salt contamination of household waste was the likely active component in dioxin formation. Recently, Greenpeace have published several reports which show phthalates in children’s toys to be harmful to the children playing with them, especially in situations in which the child chews or sucks the toy. Greenpeace have conducted experiments which are meant to simulate the action of chewing or sucking a flexible PVC toy. Greenpeace, using a solvent extraction procedure, have shown that high levels of phthalate plasticiser and lead stabiliser are present in the solvent after long extractions. However, their choice of experimentation has been attacked for being too extreme, and not representative of the true situation. The toxicity of lead stabilisers used in window blinds has also been reported by Greenpeace. According to their report, young children are at danger from lead poisoning if they touch or lick the blinds. Greenpeace have shown lead stabilisers to leach out of the rigid PVC blinds in the form of a surface dust whilst under the oxidative effects of sunlight. The reliability of these claims have again been questioned by industry since Greenpeace failed to reveal the experimental source of their data.

Greenpeace: true motives and twisting truths.

Greenpeace’s Achilles heel may be their unclear political/financial motivation. An industry related pro-chlorine group called ‘the chlorophiles’ have recently published a report entitled ‘The hidden side of Greenpeace’. The report is an obvious propaganda piece, however it contains a considerable amount of interesting information, it’s most damning message that Greenpeace is not a caring environmental group as such, but rather ‘a profit hungry monster ready to pull any trick to make a buck’. This statement may be quite far off the mark, and quite recently Greenpeace was forced to lay off a significant number of its full-time members as a result of cash shortages. Membership of Greenpeace has been steadily decreasing over the last ten years, and it is apparently in severe financial trouble. It does however, raise certain questions about Greenpeace’s sincerity, especially in view of some well documented deceptions that Greenpeace has recently tried to pull over the publics eyes. The Brent spar fiasco, which lost Greenpeace a considerable amount of public and private support, is probably the most famous example of this.
With regard to PVC, careful reading of Greenpeace’s literature reveals further less obvious twists of the truth. According to Greenpeace ‘Phthalates are a carcinogenic class of chemicals with oestrogen mimicking properties. The largest industrial usage of phthalates is in flexible PVC.’ Both of these sentences are true. However, what Greenpeace has failed to mention is that those phthalates that are used in flexible PVC possess almost zero toxicity, and show a very low oestrogen mimicking potential (in fact, it is lower than broccoli!). This simple deception leads the reader to believe something quite different. There are many other examples of ‘twists’ by Greenpeace that would appear to be a deliberate attempt to disguise the truth. However, remembering again Greenpeace’s financial situation, it is also possible that those people who write Greenpeace’s literature simply don’t have a sufficient background in the subject they are writing about. Whether Greenpeace are deliberately deceiving, or whether they are simply producing shoddy work because of cash and information shortages is debatable. The net effect however is to provide an excellent platform for the PVC industry to discredit their claims with.

Putting things into perspective.

The PVC industry claims that even if they were to hold up their hands and cry guilty to many of Greenpeace’s claims, in a proper perspective, and after a balance of pro’s and cons, PVC would still not be seen to be any more dangerous to man or the environment than any other plastic. An example of this is lead stabilisers. According to a recent review of lead stabilisers in PVC pipes in Sweden, the annual lead consumption for stabilisers in PVC pipes, in context of the total annual lead consumption, corresponds to 0.7% (225 tonnes) of all lead consumed in Sweden annually. To put this in further context, crystal glass accounts for 4% (1 300 tonnes), and fishing weights account for almost 2% (600 tonnes) of lead consumed in one year. According to the same report, the estimated annual emissions of lead from PVC pipes into the environment in Sweden corresponds to 0.001% (80 Kg) of the total lead emissions. This estimation is based upon the fact that only lead stabilisers present at the surface of the material are released into the environment. Again, putting this into context, fishing weights account for 11_% (600 tonnes), and ammunitions account for 23% (1 200 tonnes) of annual lead emissions into the Swedish environment. Since PVC piping accounts for over half of the total rigid PVC production, then, based upon this assessment, one would expect the total level of emissions from rigid PVC applications in Sweden to be no more than 150 — 160 Kg per annum, or 0.002%. If these figures are reliable, then the use of lead stabilisers in PVC would seem non-significant.

Unanswered questions: the PVC industry goes quiet.

The PVC industry thinks the fight is won. However there remain still a number of unanswered questions. What happens to PVC after 100 years in the ground? Will PVC ever be viably recyclable? What about dioxin production at poorly monitored vinyl chloride plants? What are the long term effects of increasing levels of phthalates in the food chain? The PVC industry has no answers to these questions.

Afterthought.

Although Greenpeace are discredited in the eyes of the PVC industry, other production industries are not so confident. The consumer, in general, would rather avoid PVC. As a result of this, and in spite Greenpeace becoming increasingly marginalized, PVC is being actively replaced in many applications. At the end of the day, Greenpeace have perhaps become victims of their own naïve over-enthusiasm; the PVC industry has perhaps become a victim of its slowness to concern itself with the public’s opinion.