Some Not Convinced There Wasn't Conflict
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Susanne Rust
Published July 30, 2007
The federal government says there was no impropriety in the preparation of a commissioned report on a chemical that many researchers say should be banned.
But an environmental group and a researcher remain unconvinced.
In March, an arm of the National Toxicology Program called the Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction, was embroiled in controversy after reports surfaced about a potential conflict of interest in the preparation of a draft report on a chemical plasticizer known as bisphenol-A.
This chemical has been tied to cancer, reproductive abnormalities, diabetes and birth defects in laboratory animals. Bisphenol-A is the raw material for polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins, and it is ubiquitous throughout the developed world, from baby bottles and dental sealings to canned-food linings.
When exposed to heat, wear and acidic or caustic liquids, the unstable chemical can leach. In 2005, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report showing that the chemical was present in 95% of Americans tested.
In 2006, the human reproduction center was charged with drafting a report on the chemical. The report was to provide the background material for an expert panel, called together by the center, to evaluate the safety of the chemical. The preparation of the report was contracted out to Sciences International, a private contractor based in Alexandria, Va.
In March, just as the expert panel was ready to convene and review the draft for consensus, the Environmental Working Group, a watchdog group based in Washington, D.C., reported that Sciences International had private clients including BASF and Dow Chemical - companies that manufacture bisphenol-A - as well as Dupont, Chevron, Exxon Mobil Corp., 3M, Union Carbide, the American Petroleum Institute and the American Chemistry Council.
The National Toxicology Program postponed the panel evaluation and terminated its contract with Sciences International. The director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program, David Schwartz, then wrote a letter to Rep. Henry Waxman and Sen. Barbara Boxer, both California Democrats, pledging to carry out a review of the contract and the "nature of the services" provided by Sciences International.
The program then audited the contract. The Virginia company's duties, in this case, were to search for studies related to bisphenol-A, provide summaries of these studies, and then prepare a draft report based on these studies, as well as from input provided by panel members.
On July 24, the toxicology program released the results of its audit. The government concluded Sciences International showed no impropriety.
"I feel vindicated," said Herman Gibb, president of Sciences International. But, he said, "It would have been nice if they had done this before they terminated the contract instead of after."
Others, however, are not swayed.
"It doesn't put our concerns to rest," said Anila Jacobs of the Environmental Working Group. The problem, she said, was not the literature search but the analysis provided by the firm.
Frederick vom Saal, a bisphenol-A researcher at the University of Missouri in Columbia, agreed.
He said the contractor not only misrepresented his studies in summaries they prepared but also included factual errors.
John Bucher, associate director of the toxicology program said the panel members will review the public comments and make corrections where needed.
The expert panel will evaluate and finalize the report next week in Alexandria.
