http://cspinet.org/new/200412091.html
December 9, 2004
Press release from the
Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)
CSPI, Environmental Working
Group Challenge Two Scientists on EPA panel
Committee on
Teflon Toxic Larded with Industry Scientists
Health advocacy groups
this week called on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to remove
two scientists from its “short list” of candidates for the advisory
committee that will evaluate the health risk posed by a chemical used in
making Teflon.
The two scientists either
did studies or worked for DuPont, which still makes the chemical, or 3M
Corp., which manufactured it until 2001.
In a letter sent to
EPA administrator Michael Leavitt and the staff organizing the committee,
the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and the Environmental
Working Group called for removing Michigan State University
professor John P. Giesy, who four years ago conducted 3M’s $1.3-million
study of the toxicity of the chemical, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).
The groups also called for removing Pfizer chemist
John C. Cook from the panel. Prior to working for Pfizer, Dr. Cook spent
many years working for DuPont, which still makes PFOA to use in its Teflon
manufacturing plants.
PFOA is one of the most
durable synthetic chemicals known to man. It is showing up in increasing
concentrations in the blood of humans, with concentrations higher in children
than in adults. Recent studies have shown that low doses of PFOA harm lab
animals—at estimated blood levels lower than those found in some children.
The advisory committee
will be evaluating the EPA’s draft assessment of the risks associated
with exposure to PFOA. This risk assessment could determine if the chemical
should be more tightly regulated or even removed from the market.
“Anyone with relevant
conflicts of interest must be eliminated from the panel,” Merrill
Goozner, director of the Integrity in Science project at CSPI, and Dr. Timothy
Kropp, chief scientist at the Environmental Working Group, told the EPA.
“Dr. Giesy fails
the test of financial independence from parties with a financial stake in
the outcome of this committee’s work,” they wrote. And while
Dr. Cook no longer works for DuPont, the health advocacy groups pointed
out that “his inclusion on this committee would taint the committee’s
final work product since his long tenure with DuPont may lead some to ‘perceive’
a conflict of interest, whether it exists or not.”
One
of the rationales for the conflict of interest section of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act is to eliminate not just actual conflicts, but the
perception of conflicts of interest on scientific advisory committees.
That way, the
public can be assured that the government is receiving a fair and balanced
outside review of its work.
CSPI
and EWG also pointed out to EPA officials that seven other scientists on
the proposed panel either work for companies that manufacture chemicals
or work with non-profits with close ties to the chemical industry.
On the other hand, there were seven scientists on the EPA short list that
the groups felt could fairly evaluate the environmental risks associated
with PFOA. The two groups cautioned EPA that it must ensure the final committee
is balanced, which is also a requirement of the Federal Advisory Committee
