Julie Gunlock and Angela Logomasini discuss a worrying trend in the medical arena. Increasingly, radical green activists are claiming safe and critically needed sterilizing products are dangerous to use and manufacture. That’s not true. Yet activists’ demands to shut down some of the manufacturing facilities in the United States have been met. That’s dangerous, especially in the age of Covid when the medical community needs every tool in the toolbox to fight disease. Listen as Julie and Angela discuss one concerning example and why the medical and scientific community should push back on this worrying trend.
Transcript
Beverly Hallberg:
Hey everyone. It’s Beverly Hallberg. Welcome to a special pop-up episode of She Thinks, your favorite podcast from the Independent Women’s Forum, where we talk with women, and sometimes men, about the policy issues that impact you and the people you care about most. Enjoy.
Julie:
Hey everyone. I’m Julie Gunlock, Director of IWF’s Center for Progress and Innovation. And I’m joined here today by Angela Logomasini. She’s an IWF Senior Fellow and she’s also a Fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, where she specializes in environmental risk, regulation, and consumer freedom. Since joining CEI in 1998, gosh, you’ve been there a long time, Angela, her work has featured in Forbes, The Huffington Post, New York Post, and The Wall Street Journal, among other publications. You can see her on CNN, CNBC, CSPAN, Fox Business, and dozens of radio shows, including programs on NPR, CNN Radio, and Radio America. Prior to joining CEI, Logomasini [inaudible 00:01:15] reading your bio, Angela. Angela served as legislative assistant to US Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas and was also environmental editor for the Research Institute of America. Welcome, Angela. Angela is also a very good friend of mine. Welcome, Angela.
Angela:
Thanks for having me on your show, Julie.
Julie:
So, we are going to talk about what some people might consider an obscure topic. There’s a particular kind of chemical that’s being, I would say, sort of vilified in the media a little bit, but certainly by anti-chemical alarmists. Now, this is something that you have written about. You’ve written an op ed about it and you’ve done some work for IWF about it. And I definitely want to hone in on that issue. I think it’s a great example of how antsy chemical alarmism can really affect other industries and, in this case, the medical industry. But I also want to talk to you a little bit, sort of get an update on what you’re seeing in that activist area, the antsy chemical activist area, sort of get an update on that.
But let’s start off by talking about this chemical called ethylene oxide. It is often shortened to EO. Thank God. And this is the one that we’re going to focus on today. Again, I mentioned that you’ve written for IWS on this. You have a great two truths and a lie, which is a fantastic feature that IWF has on ethylene oxide. And before we get too deeply into it, just tell our audience what is it? What is ethylene oxide? What are its uses and why are people freaking out about it?
Angela:
Okay, so it’s a gas and it is very effective in sterilizing medical equipment. And, because it’s a gas, unlike other chemicals that are used to sterilize medical equipment, it can perforate all the nooks and crannies. It doesn’t get the product wet, so you can pack your bandages and all other items ready to [inaudible 00:03:22] and then you put them in these chambers and they pump the gas in and it sterilizes them, so they’re sterile in the package and it’s pretty affordable and it’s been used for decades. It’s also a chemical that’s sort of naturally in the environment. If you smoke, there’s ethylene oxide. If there’s any kind of combustion, there’s ethylene oxide. And the human body itself produces ethylene oxide. So you have it in your blood and it’s excreted through urination, going to the bathroom, basically. And it’s not a big problem at the levels in the environment and also in our bodies and our bodies are very efficient at getting rid of it.
But what ended up happening is these medical plants, these facilities around the country, they’ve been doing it for decades, and there’s teeny tiny amounts that end up in the environment, not even barely measurable against whatever’s already in the background. Okay? So it’s not really a huge emission. And they are controlled. They have regulations, and all that, but EPA decided to do a study and they put out this ridiculous study saying that it was dangerous at the zero point part per trillion, a very, very tiny amount part per trillion, not billion, not million, but parts per trillion. And it’s one part per…
Julie:
Can I just interrupt you right there?
Angela:
Sure.
Julie:
Because honestly, frankly, I do cover scientific issues, but you are, you are much more… I think you understand a lot… You focus on these issues a lot more and I think you’re incredibly good at breaking this down, but parts per… I feel like it’s, and I could be wrong here and I feel like this is an insane thing we’re talking about, but it’s usually the measure of safety, they usually talk about parts per billion. I see PPB a lot. Right?
Angela:
Right, right.
Julie:
And when you’re talking about safety. Is parts per trillion, a new thing? Because I never hear that.
Angela:
Yes, actually…
Julie:
But is that new?
Angela:
They used to talk about parts per million, because that’s all they could measure.
Julie:
Right.
Angela:
So, then they got really good at measuring. So then they started talking about parts per billion. So they started regulating at even lower levels. Now, we’re looking at parts per trillion. So the standard that EPA set was 0.1 part per trillion, which I, believe it or not, is 19,000 times higher than the amount that the human body makes. So you’re talking about something really ridiculous.
Julie:
Right.
Angela:
So, it’s well…
So, your body makes 19,000 times more than they’re saying is dangerous.
Julie:
And we’re talking about measurements that just because they’re able to measure, just because measurements have become much more sensitive, they’re able to measure that. And I know I’m getting off topic here.
Angela:
No, you’re not.
Julie:
But I always think about how my mother, when I first had my children, I would say things like people are afraid of this or that. Right? And my mom would always say, goodness, how did I live this long? Right? And so you think about now they’re measuring it parts per trillion. Well, it’s amazing anyone lived past birth years ago. Because they’re going to start measuring things at such tiny amounts.
Angela:
Yes.
Julie:
And if they find it… And we should talk a little bit about this, because I sort of follow the antsy chemical activists, only as it applies to how consumers react to this stuff.
Angela:
Right, right.
Julie:
And they do something that is very, very smart. They don’t tell you if, for instance, if you look at the environmental working group, okay, they always put out this list, the dirty dozen list. They don’t tell you what parts per billion or parts per trillion that is considered unsafe. They just say, it’s there, we’ve detected it. And the very presence of the chemical is what they want you to be afraid of. So, by doing this, by making measurements part per trillion, it makes it much easier to make that argument with everything.
Angela:
Yes.
Julie:
That’s kind of a nightmare.
Angela:
It’s crazy. I saw something. I don’t remember exactly what it was. I saw something in the news recently and it said it’s 500 million parts per trillion. But they make it sound like a big number, but then when you do the math and you do parts per million, it’s, oh, it’s really, really tiny. It’s not even a drop in a swimming pool. So they play with the numbers to make them sound more scary. They do it all the time and that’s, what’s happened in this case. It’s the dose that makes the poison. People have to remember, you eat broccoli, you’re getting a little bit of arsenic from the environment, from mother earth, from the earth’s crust. You get cyanide in your brussel sprouts. But you don’t die from it, because it’s such a small amounts.
Julie:
Right.
Angela:
A glass of water could have multiple things in it, but they’re so tiny that it doesn’t matter. But it’s scary and that’s what’s happened in this case. And so they’ve scared these communities because of this EPA junk science study.
Julie:
Right. Right. You have this too with pesticide residues. I love that example of a child having to eat literally buckets and buckets and buckets and buckets of strawberries before he reaches… And, after those 32 buckets of, it’s probably more like 300 buckets of strawberries, he only gets to the safe level. He doesn’t even get to the toxic level of pesticide residue. And yet, you have moms scrambling all around trying to find, this is another myth, but the pesticide free strawberries when, actually, organic foods can be grown with pesticides. The whole thing is just a big lie. But with things like EO, this is a serious.. It has serious medical uses.
Angela:
Yes.
Julie:
And I could be wrong here, but isn’t there a shortage or is there some problems with sterilizing medical equipment because of these activists?
Angela:
Well, what happened is at the end of last year, the Food and Drug Administration… So what happened is in 2018 and 2019, the scare campaign went out and the Chicago Tribune created a real health scare outside of Chicago in a few towns with a series of articles saying people we’re going to get cancer or they’re going to get leukemia? So they actually shut down a facility outside of Chicago in a town called Willowbrook. And then, other areas started paying attention and a bunch of, about seven, of these facilities shut down.
And so, FDA started issuing warnings. They had a shortage of pediatric breathing tubes. And then, in the fall, they held a conference with some experts and they were warning that if anything bad happens, say we have a pandemic, for instance, there was going to be a big problem with medical supplies. And that’s exactly what happened. So you had the perfect storm, if you will. And then, fortunately, FDA was able to get these communities to open up most of the facilities. Only the one in Willowbrook is still not opened and that will not be reopening. So they destroyed that one business.
Julie:
But where else? I hear isn’t this also bubbling up in Georgia and there’s some others?
Angela:
Yes.
Julie:
I don’t know if you know that, but I feel like I’ve seen reports from other states.
Angela:
Yes. Yeah. So Georgia was another area where they had some problems and they had shut down facilities and FDA… They had to actually bring a lawsuit to get this one facility to open up, because the community wouldn’t open it up. And now, there’s still the swirling health scare. EPA is working… They’ve been monitoring. Background levels are still well below levels of concern, but they’re going to put out a regulation. They put out one to regulate the producers. Now, they’re going to put out another tightening, in 2021, of these facilities, but right now, they’re operational. And it’s real important that EPA go back and fix that study or get rid of it so that we can have rational policy, because there are costs and there are human lives costs when there aren’t sterile medical supplies. We may not know those human lives and they may not be even measurable. It’s hard to measure and attribute these things.
Julie:
You say that they need to go back and they need to fix this study or they need to correct the study or they need to show the evidence and they need to present the evidence and certainly do a better job of that. One thing I have always had a problem with is these agencies do a very bad job of communicating this stuff to the public. Although, it is science and these things are confusing. Goodness sakes, it took me a week to even say ethylene oxide without stumbling all over myself. It’s not that hard. Gosh, there are other… Glyphosate was another one that took a while. So I guess that these things can be hard for people to explain, but they do need to do a better job.
But this brings up, and I don’t want to pivot too much to politics here, but tell me a little bit about what was the regulatory state of these kinds of chemicals and, even agrochemicals, under the Obama administration. I would assume that there has been an easing up of these types of, I would say, regulations based on bad science since the Trump administration came in, is that correct?
Angela:
Right. That is correct. They haven’t corrected the ethylene oxide stuff. And, interestingly, that wasn’t even a regulation. It was an assessment. It wasn’t a full risk assessment. It was just a partial one that one of these research entities at the EPA put out. But there has been some pushback, surprisingly, because I’ll tell you, most Republican administrations are too afraid, but they…
Julie:
Pushback.
Angela:
Another one that is hard to pronounce, chlorpyrifos, which is a pesticide [crosstalk 00:13:49].
Julie:
Oh, I’ve never been able to do that. I admire you so much. Say it again.
Angela:
Chlorpyrifos. It’s really important for orange growing and lots of fruits and vegetables. You want to be able to afford healthy fruits and vegetables. Farmers need tools. And this case, the study that the Obama EPA used, one study, very bad quality, the science advisory panel at EPA said not a very good study, and the researchers who are funded by NIH and EPA are really activists. They’re not really academics.
Julie:
Yes.
Angela:
And they put this study out and they refused to release the data, because the data is incomplete and very poor quality.
Julie:
Well, I have…
Angela:
And so, nobody can validate it.
Julie:
Yeah.
Angela:
Because they won’t release it.
Julie:
Right, right.
Angela:
But the Trump EPA has pushed back and they did not ban the chemical. And so they are trying to improve the science, which is very positive.
Julie:
But I tell you, the activists are so spun up about that. I tried to find some information. I know you have written on it. I really encourage people to go to cei.org and find Angela’s writing on that pesticide, which I can’t say, chlorpyrifos?
Angela:
You know what, that’s how I’ve been saying it until a colleague of mine corrected me. He said, no, it’s chlorpyrifos.
Julie:
Chlorpyrifos.
Angela:
I don’t know. Something along those lines.
Julie:
I rely on smarter people like you to say those tough words. So the point is that there is a pesticide out there that is probably… It’s funny, and I feel like it used to be glyphosate, and it still is. People still freak out about Roundup and glyphosate.
Angela:
Yes.
Julie:
But this one has sort of taken over as the number one supposedly scary pesticide. But, again, you say really important things. Farmers need tools and what a lot of people get hung up on is not the specific pesticide. It’s the idea that pesticides are used at all. And it’s really too bad, because I think if people do speak to farmers, and I have and I know a lot. I grew up in central Illinois. I grew up with farmers. But, also, I know a lot of farmers and I talk to a lot of farmers and these are tools that help them increase yield. They care about the environment. They care about their land. They probably care about their land, land in general, the earth in general, more than anybody else, because they won’t grow anything if they destroy their own land.
Angela:
Right.
Julie:
So this is…
Angela:
Not to mention, without those pesticides, they’d have to plant more land. There’d be less land for wildlife.
Julie:
Exactly.
Angela:
They’d have to plant a lot more land.
Julie:
That’s exactly right.
Angela:
So, environmentally speaking, is a positive.
Julie:
Yes, it is. And I think this is a sort of obsession, all of this, whether it’s fear of pesticides, fear of certain chemicals, like EO, that are critical in the medical community. The sort of alarmism that we see out there for these products really has some very scary consequences. And I’m really glad that you’re out there fighting back on this. And I want to also reiterate that Angela wrote a great, very easy to read… And let me tell you something, it is not easy to take really complicated issues and make them understandable to what I would say lay people like me. I am not a scientist. And I try to do that in some of my writing. Angela is a master at it on her latest at IWF. It’s Two Truths and a Lie about ethylene oxide and I really encourage people to go there, because, again, it’s about a page, page and a half, and you can test your knowledge on the issue. And she gives them some, quick, short, very helpful information on that. So thanks for doing that, Angela.
Angela:
I was happy to do it. IWF does great work. Great to be part of the team.
Julie:
Yeah. Well, listen, I think we’ve covered a lot of issues here and we’re going to wrap it up, but tell people where they can find you and where they can find your writing.
Angela:
Well, they definitely can check out IWF. I did a blog post in those two pieces. Cei.org, you can search for my profile on there. And then, I also have a lot of background information at safechemicalpolicy.com, as well.
Julie:
Great. And if you’re a mom out there, seriously, this is the kind of thing that scares moms a lot. When I first had, and I’ve told this story a million times, but when I first had children, I was actually terrified. I thought that additives in food and chemicals that were used to really improve products in manufacturing were actually dangerous and were going to harm my child, delay my child’s development or cause them some sort of problems. And as I really examined these issues and I read articles from people like Angela Logomasini, I really felt relief. So do check out her writing at CEI and, again, at iwf.org.
Julie:
We hope you take away something from today’s conversation. If you’ve enjoyed this episode of She Thinks or like the podcast, in general, we’d love for you to take a moment to leave us a rating or review on iTunes. This helps ensure our message reaches as many Americans as possible. Share this episode and let your friends know they can find more She Thinks episodes on their favorite podcast app. From all of us here at IWF, don’t forget you are in control. I think, you think, She Thinks.