In Actual Fact

No, it’s not Swabian, but it does contain the word “phthalates” and some EU-speak. It must count as a foreign language to at least some readers.

The EU, or quality of BBC Science reporting. Which is worse?

First off, this quote from the report (23 page Word file) to the European Parliament on banning 6 chemicals used as plasticisers (softeners) in children’s toys:

Scientific information regarding DINP, DIDP and DNOP is either lacking or conflictual, but it can not be excluded that they pose a potential risk if used in toys and childcare articles, which are by definition produced for children. The exposure of children to practically avoidable sources of emissions of these substances, especially from articles that can be put into the mouth by them, should be reduced as far as possible. It is wise to apply the precautionary principle in this case.

Which tells you everything one needs to know about their way of thinking - even if the scientific data is inconclusive or doesn’t even exist - ban it.

The BBC reports the story thus:

The European Parliament has voted to permanenty ban the use of a group of chemicals to soften children’s toys following health concerns.
Phthalates have been linked to damage to the reproductive system, and an increased risk of asthma and cancer…… a study by New York’s University of Rochester, published in May, found exposure to the chemicals was linked to a higher risk of genital abnormalities in baby boys.

So there you go then, unlike the EU report, actual, peer-reviewed science - even if it does contain that disturbing phrase “even with our relatively small sample”, which researchers really shouldn’t use if they’re trying to promote their work.
Anyway, what did the study show? It “showed” that women who have higher levels of phthalates in their bloodstream are more likely to give birth to boys with genital abnormalities. So unless the EU is considering banning pre-natal toys for foetuses, wouldn’t it be better informing pregnant woment which phthalates present in hair spray, deodorants, shampoo, nail polish perfume and even medical equipment they should be avoiding?
And is this effect even relative to the EU ban? Not really: the EU ban is because some phthalates are toxic and carcinogenic, not because of the anti-androgenic effect that some, but not all phthalates have.

So, to answer the question: the EU or the BBC, they’re as bad as one another. The EU is banning 6 chemicals for being toxic, when studies show that three of them aren’t (at least not at sane LD50 levels), and the BBC is being as sensationalist about a science story as they can. Outright winner of the stupidity quote competition has to go to MEP John Bowis though:

“Nobody is going to be killed by chewing them, but potentially there is a carcinogenic threat.”

Nice one John, because carcinogens never killed anyone, did they?
Idiots. I’m glad these people are helping prevent me from harm. John Bowis, whose quote above tells you all one needs to know about his understanding of the scientific issues was actually allowed to vote on this.