- Certainty on the Science of Climate Change
- They’re Not Perfect Cells, But They’re Model Cells
- Genomic Medicine on the March
- President’s Budget Aims to Recharge Regional Innovation
- Event: The Science of Climate Change
- Progress in Bioethics
- The Top Science Progress Features of 2009
- Science Education Progress
- Why Spies Should Team Up With Environmental Scientists
- More Cells are Good, More Diverse Cells are Better
- More Stem Cells Lines Approved, Process Proves Smart
- Research Parks and Job Creation: Innovation Through Cooperation
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
More Unregulated Toxins In Everyday Products
The latest news on industry obfuscation of scientific research and government complicity is that the Food and Drug Administration relied on studies funded by trade groups in decisions on an unsafe compound in common plastic products. The Washington Post reports that despite more than 100 independent studies indicating that bisphenol A, or BPA, poses health risks to consumers, the FDA relied on research supported by the American Plastics Council when it declared the chemical fit for human consumption. We’ve seen this pattern before, the Post indicates:
“Tobacco figured this out, and essentially it’s the same model,” said David Michaels, who was a federal regulator in the Clinton administration. “If you fight the science, you’re able to postpone regulation and victim compensation, as well. As in this case, eventually the science becomes overwhelming. But if you can get five or 10 years of avoiding pollution control or production of chemicals, you’ve greatly increased your product.”
Mitchell Cheeseman, deputy director of the FDA’s office of food additive safety, said the agency is not biased toward industry.
“The fact is, it’s industry’s responsibility to demonstrate the safety of their products,” he said. “The fact that industry generated data to support the safety I don’t think is an unusual thing.”
The FDA may be correct in assuming that it’s perfectly usual for industry groups to generate data that supports their claims. The positive correlation between funding source and desirable study outcomes is strong in other fields like nutritional research. But the simultaneous assumption that demonstrating safety is an industry responsibility and that industry groups will generate data that supports their assertions of product safety is a virtual abdication of regulatory responsibility.
Both the FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency regulate BPA. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works will hold a hearing tomorrow on the EPA’s oversight of toxic chemicals. Let’s hope they hold at least one agency charged with protecting public health accountable.
Comments on this article
Do you have any links to 100 studies that demonstrate harm being caused by BPA in consumer products?
May 4th, 2008 at 9:18 pmThe Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy has an excellent overview of research on BPA’s impact on the endocrine system, including links to many such studies.
May 5th, 2008 at 3:06 pm