Alarming Mathematical Blunder Sparked Fear in People Regarding Hazardous Black Cookware Kitchen Items
Earlier this year, a research unnerved individuals, causing them to discard their black culinary utensils and other kitchen tools, fearing harmful chemicals. However, it was later found that the alarming caution was based on a significant mathematical error.
In October, researchers from the advocacy group Toxic-Free Future and the Amsterdam Institute for Life and Environment published a study in the journal Chemosphere, suggesting that black plastic kitchenware emitted concerning levels of a toxic flame-resistant compound. This alarm spread rapidly across the internet, leading many to discard their trusted black spatulas. However, a chemist in Canada has identified a mathematical mistake in the study that calls into question, or at least complicates, its results, as first reported by the National Post.
The Chemosphere study hypothesized that some black electronic waste, containing the flame-resistant chemical Decabromodiphenyl ether, linked to serious health issues, was being recycled into household products sold in the U.S. Consequently, the researchers aimed to estimate the amount of this chemical leaking from black plastic kitchenware and contaminating users during cooking.
The team concluded that using this type of kitchenware could result in users absorbing a median daily amount of 34,700 nanograms of Decabromodiphenyl ether, also known as BDE-209. This was significantly higher than previous models had estimated for human exposure through other means and concerningly close to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) reference dose of 42,000 nanograms per day for a 60-kilogram (132.3-pound) adult.
However, there was a problem—the EPA’s reference dose for BDE-209 is not 42,000 nanograms per day. The agency’s reference dose is 7,000 nanograms per kilogram (2.2 pounds) of body weight per day. When the researchers calculated this for a 60-kilogram (132.3-pound) individual, they multiplied 60 by 7,000 and obtained 42,000. However, the correct result should have been 420,000.
The core finding of the study—that the recycling of some e-waste was releasing a toxic chemical into kitchenware sold in the U.S.—remains valid. However, the mistake significantly alters its implications, which had suggested that black kitchenware items were exposing users to over 80% of the EPA reference dose. In reality, it’s less than 10%.
“I think it does change the tone of the whole thing a bit when you’re off by a factor of ten compared to the reference value,” Joe Schwarcz, director of McGill University’s Office for Science and Society and plastics expert, who identified the mistake, told the National Post. “All of this merits attention,” he added. “But you have to do it properly, and you have to ensure your numbers are correct before you scare people.”
Megan Liu of Toxic-Free Future, who co-led the study, stated that they’d submitted a correction for the “typo” but that the mistake “does not impact our results,” according to the National Post. “The levels of flame retardants that we found in black plastic household items are still of high concern, and our recommendations remain the same,” she added.
Consider the people who discarded their favorite spatulas due to a warning that was off by a factor of 10.
The error in the study has led to questions about the accuracy of the suggested health risks associated with black plastic kitchenware, challenging the notion that its use could expose individuals to over 80% of the EPA reference dose for Decabromodiphenyl ether. In the future, advancements in technology and science can facilitate more precise methodologies for estimating human exposure to harmful chemicals from various sources.
Despite the mathematical error, the study still emphasizes the significance of ongoing research into the presence of toxic substances in everyday products, ultimately highlighting the need for responsible production and informed consumer choices in the technology and manufacturing sectors to prioritize human health.
