http://www.ewg.org/news/story.php?id=3146
Washington
Post
October 26,
2004
Chemical
Industry Funds Aid EPA Study
Effect
of Substances on Children Probed
By: Juliet
Eilperin
The Environmental Protection Agency has agreed to accept $2 million
from the American Chemistry Council to help fund a study exploring
the impact of pesticides and household chemicals on young children,
prompting an outcry from environmentalists.
The Children's
Environmental Exposure Research Study -- known by its acronym
CHEERS -- does not mark the first time the agency has accepted
chemical industry money to conduct research; the Clinton administration
signed similar agreements. But it represents the most money the
chemical trade group has given the EPA. The chemical industry
council represents about 135 manufacturers and spends $20 million
a year on research.
Paul Gilman,
who serves as science adviser and assistant administrator for
the EPA's office of research and development, said the money will
help the agency conduct "groundbreaking work" on how
chemicals are absorbed by infants and children as old as 3.
"We will
seek their opinions, but we're in control of the project,"
Gilman said. "We're comfortable with the fact that it's our
study design."
Environmental
Working Group President Kenneth A. Cook questioned why an agency
with a $572 million research budget needed to accept industry
contributions to conduct scientific research.
"It simply
is not credible that a $7.8 billion agency that employs almost
18,000 people has to go to the chemical industry to get $2 million
for a crucial study to see if chemicals hurt kids," he said.
"This is a government function; we should be investing government
funds to be absolutely sure it's independent."
The study
will survey 60 children over the next two years in Duval County,
Fla., and collect information on their exposure to pesticides
and household chemicals, such as flame retardants and perfluorinated
chemicals, a family of substances in products such as Teflon and
Scotchgard. Some of these chemicals have come under scrutiny for
possible links to health problems.
Carol Henry,
vice president for science and research at the American Chemistry
Council, said her industry wanted to promote a better understanding
of the risks associated with chemical exposure. Teaming up with
a preexisting federal study gives her group financial leverage,
she said.
"Exposure
has been ignored for many, many years. It's the wasteland of risk
assessment," Henry said. "We'd like the regulatory framework
to be based on a very firm scientific foundation."
Henry said
her association had set up a board of academics and industry officials
to be "a resource to investigators" on an occasional
basis, but added her group would not get advance notice of the
results and the government would retain control over its findings.
"We'll give them our guidance, but they don't have to take
it," she said. The EPA's Gilman said it was reasonable to
accept industry money in light of the gravity of the situation.
Researchers still don't know how these compounds "are getting
into our blood," he said, adding that young children are
rarely studied, making the survey especially valuable.
In late September,
Linda Sheldon, acting director for the EPA's human exposure and
atmospheric sciences division, said the agency has "very
little information about how children may be exposed to chemicals
in household products, whether it's through the air they breathe,
food they eat or the surfaces they touch."
Gilman said the chemical manufacturers imposed no conditions to
their contribution: "They said, 'Who do we make the check
out to?' It's $2 million in additional support with no strings
attached."
But Cook said
he remained concerned industry officials could still influence
a study that could lay the groundwork for future regulation. "To
have industry sponsoring the government to do it, to us, doesn't
seem like a good idea, to say the least," Cook said.