PFPC Daily - December 9, 2004

CSPI, Environmental Working Group Challenge Two Scientists on EPA
panel

Committee on Teflon Toxic Larded with Industry Scientists

CSPI Press Release - December 9, 2004

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 Act.

SOURCE:
http://cspinet.org/new/200412091.html