Most of us know Exxon Mobil Corp. as an energy giant, which makes sense given that it is the world’s largest publicly held oil and gas company. Rex Tillerson, the company’s CEO, has spent his entire professional life prioritizing Exxon Mobil’s corporate interests over human rights, the environment, and the diplomatic interests of the U.S., all of which has prompted many journalists and commentators to point out that his appointment as secretary of state is not just a terrible idea but a joke seemingly ripped from the pages of a Marxist comic book.
What’s less well known is that Exxon Mobil is also one of the world’s biggest chemical companies, and that its chemical interests also sometimes run counter to those of people in the U.S. and beyond. Petrochemicals accounted for more than a quarter of Exxon Mobil’s $16 billion in net profits last year and wound up in wide range of consumer products such as plastics, tires, batteries, detergents, adhesives, synthetic fibers, and household detergents.
Among Exxon Mobil’s chemical products are phthalates, a family of chemicals widely used to make plastic pliable. Phthalates are in everything from food containers and plastic wrap to rattles, pacifiers, bottle nipples, and teething toys for babies. More than 75 percent of Americans have at least five of the chemicals in their body, according to a 2000 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Exxon Mobil insists its products pose no harm. In response to inquiries for this story, the company emailed a statement to The Intercept saying that “Exxon Mobil phthalates have been thoroughly tested, and evaluations by multiple government agencies in the U.S., EU, and Australia show they are safe in their current applications.” (The email also included a link to the company’s webpage on the health and environmental impacts of phthalates.) But numerous independent studies have linked the chemicals to health problems, including cancer, neurodevelopmental effects, endocrine disruption, and adverse harm to the male reproductive system.
Given the risks, Congress permanently banned several phthalates in 2008, temporarily banned a few others, and directed the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) to study whether several other phthalates should also be removed from kids’ products. The law required the CPSC to act within 180 days of its final decision.
An expert committee appointed by the CPSC came out with its final report on phthalates in 2014. After years of meetings, public comments, and peer review, the panel of scientists decided that eight phthalates should be banned from use in children’s toys. The report cited studies showing that babies who were exposed to higher levels of some phthalates in utero tended to have smaller “anogenital distances” and other reproductive tract problems, effects that were also seen in animals exposed to phthalates.
Despite the clear directive of the scientific experts and the Congress-mandated timeframe, the CPSC has yet to finalize its ban. During the almost two years since the deadline passed, Exxon Mobil has been working hard to slow and reverse the commission’s decision, drafting at least one legislative rider designed to keep some of their phthalates on the market and submitting lengthy comments and objections to the ban.
“Exxon has been sending letters, having meetings, they’re just constantly in CPSC’s face in a way designed to suggest that, if you go the wrong way on this, we’re going to sue you,” said Eve Gartner, an attorney with Earthjustice. Gartner and a few other environmental advocates try to attend these meetings whenever possible, but they describe being outgunned by the big company’s lobbying efforts.
“I don’t have the time to attend all Exxon’s meetings, but they have the time to attend all of ours,” said Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist at Natural Resources Defense Council. “There’s a lot more of them and they have a lot more resources.”
As a political force, kids are no match for one of the world’s biggest chemical companies, and they’ll suffer for the lack of clout. While the CPSC fails to finalize its own rule, more and more kids are exposed to phthalates. The inaction “speaks to the power of Exxon to frighten federal agencies away from doing their jobs,” as Earthjustice’s Gartner put it. And that was before the company’s CEO had a top government job.
Top photo: Examples of unsafe toys are shown during a press conference at the U.S. Public Interest Group as they release the 29th annual Trouble in Toyland report about dangerous or toxic toys in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 1, 2014.
It is used because it is costless? Is there any other material that can be used in its place? Should be researched. Non-harmful substances should be used.
The problem is not that phthalates are in children’s toys, it’s that phthalates are allowed to be made in the first place. Human children are no more important than the children of any other species, and in fact are no more important than the adults that they will become and who operate our societies. Phthalates and all other petroleum products are bad for the environment. Keep oil in the ground and you solve this problem.
This is dog-whistle “journalism” targeting social liberals while avoiding fundamental issues.
Exxon Mobil a a large, capitalist entity that does many things and produces many products that are or may be harmful to people, animals and/or the environment. It does this to make a profit for shareholders, which is its legal obligation under our-capitalist-dominated and (effectively) -ruled system.
The CPSC NPRM constitutes a threat to a portion of the company’s revenue stream and there is a process in place to comment upon and challenge the proposed rule. Exxon Mobil is availing itself of that process. If it did not, it is quite likely that it would be exposing itself to litigation by shareholders for failing to work to preserve (and grow) that revenue stream.
The problem is not that Exxon Mobil is playing by the rules (with some apparent success, at least in delaying the rulemaking) but the premises and the foundations of the system itself. Global finance-industrial capitalism is incompatible with business decision-making that prioritizes health, safety and the environment over profit.
And the problem with Rex Tillerson as a cabinet member is not that his company may have acted in ways that are harmful to health and safety (that, again, is a systemic issue). The problem with his nomination is that he is a captain of industry, a hero of capitalism (much like TI funder Omidyar, with his 8 billion dollars of personal wealth), an individual who — by virtue of training, experience, inclination, personal interest and economic philosophy, etc. — represents the Owners, the Bosses, the Elite, the 0.1 Percent, not the citizens of the country, of the world at large, or the biosphere that keeps us all alive.
So, why is TI tossing around pointless (frankly silly) hit pieces like this one instead of dealing with the core issues?
Hmm?
But Lerner’s piece isn’t inconsistent with what you argue, is it? Her fist paragraph says:
Focusing on Tillerson’s entirely normal CO behavior, and the phthalates issue, aren’t incompatible with broader criticism of the system. Both are examples of what happens in that system.
Not everyone who reads this site, and who is supportive of it’s general posture, is totally anti-capitalist. I don’t expect the site to be.
If a reader isn’t anti-capitalist, and is somehow horrified by Exxon Mobil’s entirely legal — indeed, arguably required behavior to protect revenue and profits for the benefit of its shareholders, said reader probably should do a little remedial reading on the workings of capitalism and the legal obligations of corporate managers.
You’re correct in your observations about the system Doug.
Still, it’s always interesting to see which legal obligations of corporate managers they choose to apply. As we observed with telecomm (retroactive) immunity, bank misconduct and countless other examples, legal obligations – specifically, those that don’t directly and positively impact the fiduciary bottom line – don’t mean much when a corporation is determined to defy them and has the means and resources to literally rewrite the laws they are obliged to follow. And that’s part and parcel of the overall system that you so rightly call out.
What about social democrats? As in Scandinavia? There’s little getting around the efficiency and wealth created by capitalism; the problem is the enormous “price” paid for all of that by so many, including those exploited in other nations.
On Twitter some time ago Shenebraskan linked me to a Graun piece on the pros and cons of capitalism v Marxism that she and I both found compelling. I wish I could find it but my searches didn’t yield it.
The “wealth” and efficiency created by capitalism are, in the end, dangers, not benefits.
And capitalism relies upon growth — endless growth — in a finite world. It is fundamentally incompatible with sustainable civilization as well as with democracy and equality.
Endless growth is like a cancer that will devour our natural resources and leave a few monopolistic companies in control of the majority of production, basically an oligarchy. Although these destructive forces in an unchecked capitalistic system have been around and dealt with through out American history. Teddy Roosevelt broke up monopolistic trusts, the EPA was created to protect the environment, the department of consumer affairs was created to protect American citizens, ect. Yet all these gains that protect people, thus creating a sustainable capitalistic system, are being under attack. This how corporate lobbyists and now executives taking over American politics are so dangerous. It not only puts the lives of all humans and the environment at risk, but it makes a capitalistic system, which they are ironically the biggest beneficiaries of, unstable and unsustainable.
Company valuations and shareholder value creation result from a complex relationship between risks and rewards of future cash flows. Short term revenue stream will not necessarily impact the shareholder value creation if the company is increasing the risk of its future cash flows via increase in legal liability, consumer backlash etc. In other words, when determining shareholder value, you can’t just look at the revenue stream without taking into account operating and financial risks.
Environmentalists and science don’t mix
Their “studies” are garbage
Garbage is your every comment. Spewing one empty, unsupported assertion after another.
My comments are a reflection of this site’s content
They print garbage and I call it garbage
And Mona’s comments appear to be a reflection of the content of your comments, garbage.
Great article, was wondering if the recent TOSCA “reforms” have any effect on the CPSC’s effort to regulate?
Unfortunately science is not on your side in this situation.
I appreciate when you hold an evil business’ feet to the fire, but make sure you do some extracurricular fact checking. You better have better evidence than that if you want to go against mainstream science.
Please hold yourself to a higher standard when reporting science news, or you might find yourself ostracized like AlterNet because of it.
Keep up the good work with politics though.
Since when is Alternet “ostracized?” If Lerner doesn’t have science “on her side” one wouldn’t know it based on your vacuous comment. Usupported assertions are just that.
How did I ever make it to the age of 64?
Think about it–no car seats, not seat belts in cars, no bike helmets, DDT being sprayed, no EPA, and all kinds of chemicals in everything!
The study mentioned in this report referred to in utero exposure and I don’t think Exxon or anyone else is making in utero baby toys yet. The mothers might be playing with in utero toys that contain these chemicals so they should be discouraged from doing that.
Wasn’t this a job for Obama’s EPA? Or for Obama’s Consumer Product Safety Commission?
This is a dumb article. Exxon doesn’t make toys.
Toy Manufacturers are the ones who select the raw materials. These raw materials are used for many things OTHER than toys — such as car parts.
Why aren’t you talking about the Toy Manufacturers? You don’t even think.
Maybe you need to read this article again, I don’t think you understood what you read. You call yourself “Truth Seeker” and defend Exxon, a company that is manipulating research for profit. If Exxon was not lobbying to distort the truth for profit, then this chemical would not be available for toy manufacturers to use. Saying someone doesn’t even think is a ridiculous claim when the answer to your ludicrous question is literally right in front of you.
No… I don’t need to reread it.
Does Exxon make toys? Saran Wrap? Baby Pacifiers? Tupperware?
NOPE.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
The vacuousness of your observation is demonstrated by Exxon’s work to forestall implementation of the CPSC’s findings and recommendations.
The issue isn’t that Exxon manufactures the chemicals – that’s fine, put then in car parts – it’s that Exxon spends large sums of money to prevent them from being banned in toys.
Does Exxon own Mattel or Parker Brothers?
Nope.
Bitch at them, instead.
Correct. If the findings in this article are correct, we as consumers can now do our own research and stop buying products that are harmful to our health. Exxon seems to be the first cog in this machine, lying to keep their product from getting banned. If Mattel and others are using this product in their toys and pacifiers, we can then hold their feet to the fire.
If it were possible to build a business model that didn’t depend on killing your clients, some company would have done it by now.
If Exxon Mobil diverted its resources from producing phthalates to pumping more oil, that would merely speed up the process of catastrophic climate change. The resulting global ecological disaster might in fact end up killing even more people. So the question that companies must ask themselves is “how to achieve a decent profit margin, while killing as few people as possible?” This article, while well researched and written, doesn’t prove that Exxon Mobil kills more people per dollar of profit producing phthalates than they do in their other lines of business. It is therefore not sufficiently rigorous.
You’re missing the bright side , Benito. Once they achieve catastrophic climate change, companies will be uniquely positioned to sell cleanup services to the government. It’s a Win-Win situation. ;)
Rape, Pillage and get that Booty”
The American Way!
~”Corporate Pirate Barbarianism” is Alive and Well All throughout the World!
$hiver Me Timber$!
The Skull & Cross Bones Flag… She Flies Forever with No One to Stop Us!
Bribery+Infuence=Death to All Others!
Phthalates in children’s toys were temporarily banned in the EU in 1999 and completely banned in 2005. There is an interesting documentary that tracks toys for children and documents a great many toxic substances that can harm children, which are still allowed in US products, but have been banned in the EU for a long time. China has different work areas to deal with it, one for the lax US market and another for the rest of the world!
EU is way ahead of the FDA. However, I had mistakenly thought the EU had banned petroleum jelly in 2004. FDA, of course, thinks it’s safe, like the chemical azodicarbonamide; found in ~ 500 items of food.
It’s pretty scary how they use (and keep uninformed) the majority of the population as guinea pigs.
I guess that’s neoliberalism for us.
So you have a cut throat CEO that prioritized the welfare of his company and his shareholders ahead of everything else. That pretty much describes most CEO’s.
Well now his new job is to prioritize the safety and welfare of the American people 1st.
I’m glad that he’s on our side. I hope that he does a good job.
You forgot to mention an important thing:
Babies absorb the most Phthalates with mothermilk. useless just to forbid Ps in babystuff…
Its less about big bad companies but more about consciousness: people buy that stuff, cause its cheap and easy to handle – as long as you dont think of the consequences.
“Babies absorb the most Phthalates with mothermilk. ”
Then we should ban breast feeding and sell formula. Think of the sales!
The reason that phthalates are in breast milk is because they exist in the environment. The solution is to ban them everywhere, not to allow them everywhere as you imply.
Thanks for holding Trump’s cabinet pick’s feet to the fire.
Why haven’t we gone back to glass bottles with required money deposits, 2 cents back in the day, no throw aways.
“Exxon Mobil insists its products pose no harm”
and “Doctors use to prefer Camels”.
Agreed! I protested vehemently when California eliminated reusable bottles in the guise of a recycling law. Fuck recycling if you can reuse something! And fuck plastic, in bottles, toys, or anywhere else; this crap is a major scourge on our planet.
Is there anything parents can do? I don’t even know how to find out what products these are in. Guess I will be taking back all the presents. Wooden blocks with no paint. about the only thing safe these days.
Deadheded- I didn’t mean to ruin your holiday! this Grist story is helpful: http://grist.org/living/your-guide-to-buying-nontoxic-kid-friendly-toys/ Definitely for the babies especially, non-plastic seems best
Excellent link, thanks Sharon!
Link for the original Swan study is here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280349/ It references a few animal studies in its conclusion.
I think it can be presumed that something changing children is not doing so innocuously. The proof of cause and effect is not *absolute* (You can picture that a shorter anogenital distance correlates with some kidney polymorphism that affects excretion) but given the animal studies in which the stuff is either given or not, it’s very convincing. The main issue that this study doesn’t address (others might) is whether exposure of children in their toys has any such dramatic effect. I mean, there are lots of things that are considered pretty much safe as long as pregnant moms aren’t exposed to them, and the Swan study was a study of pregnancy and effect on fetal development, essentially. It’s hard to turn around and say a chemical used for 100 years is actually a bad idea, no matter how often it happens.
There is nothing “safe” created from plastic or anything else from oil, including oil itself, which never should have been taken out of the ground. If something causes harm to pregnant women, it’s harmful and should be banned, period.
Use of the precautionary principle, which the more enlightened societies use, would preclude specious arguments like yours. If you want to make something artificial, YOU should have to prove it’s safe, not the other way around.
This is the sort of argument that has sent the entire nanotube and graphene industry to China. I mean, yeah, there are some unnerving risks, but at the same time… the U.S. spent a small fortune in research funds pioneering this basic technology, and in a decade or so every penny of trillions of dollars in sales is likely to be going to PRC.
If indeed there I any air one can breathe in the PRC. But of course you can buy bottled air. Silly me!
Capitalism kills.
Lining up the ruling class for the guillotine is merely self-defense.
Public beheadings are truly a lost art.
Apparently not in Saudi Arabia