Inside EPA, Maria Hegsta
Published March 13, 2008
Environmentalists are seeking to remove from EPA scientific review panels at least 17 scientists they say are tied to the chemical industry after the industry successfully lobbied the agency to strip out the scientific review comments of a Maine public health official.
Industry officials have argued the official, Deborah Rice of the Maine
Center for Disease Control and Prevention, had a "perceived conflict of
interest" because she chaired the review panel for a fire retardant after publicly calling for a ban on the chemical.
The environmentalists' actions are the latest development in a long-standing battle over scientific review panels whose conclusions can alter risk assessments for chemicals and pollutants, leading to concerns that reviewers must be strictly evaluated to ensure they are free from conflicts of interest.
Environmentalists' latest effort is being driven by EPA's decision to remove Rice from the panel reviewing EPA's draft risk assessment for the flame retardant decabrominated diphenyl ether, or Deca.
The chemical, which is being assessed for EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database, is the only remaining commercially used substance in a class of chemicals known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and is still in broad use in electronics casings and commercial upholstery and fabric.
Rice's comments were removed from the review of the draft risk assessment of four PBDEs after the American Chemistry Council (ACC) wrote EPA research chief George Gray that Rice had a conflict of interest warranting her removal from EPA's panel.
The industry letter noted that Rice testified before the Maine legislature, on behalf of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention, where she advocated that the state mandate a phaseout of deca-BDE. "There is no doubt that she [Rice] has taken a very public position concerning a regulatory determination that is fundamental to the very issues presented to the panelists in the draft IRIS Toxicological Reviews," ACC Vice President Sharon Kneiss wrote Gray in a May 3, 2007, letter obtained by the Environmental Working Group (EWG).
EPA research chief George Gray acknowledged Rice's removal in a January 8 letter to ACC. Relevant documents are available on InsideEPA.com.
ACC said in a March 5 statement that the group was concerned that the peer review panel's leadership lacked the impartiality and objectivity necessary to conduct a fair and impartial review of the data. "We believe the EPA acted appropriately and consistently with the rules governing membership in scientific review panels," the statement says.
EWG says Rice's removal shows the chemical industry has the ear of EPA and the lack of her input will likely weaken the Deca assessment. "If ACC is able to go straight to [George Gray] and demand the removal of a lifelong public servant, EWG will certainly step up efforts to remove" panelists with industry affiliation, says an EWG source. "If they can do it retroactively, I guess we can, too."
In response, EWG researched the members of seven review panels that met in 2007. EWG claims 17 panelists have direct or perceived conflicts of interest due to industry ties. They include members of the Science Advisory Baord (SAB) panel currently reviewing the draft acrylamide assessment. They also include members of IRIS review panels for dibutyl phthalate; 1,1,1-trichloroethane; ethylene oxide; 2,2,4-trimethylpentane; nitrobenzene; and tetrahydrofuran, according to an EWG report. The group also plans to research the backgrounds of members on all the 2006 and 2007 chemical review panels, an EWG source says.
An outside scientist familiar with EPA scientific reviews says Rice's
removal "definitely has a chilling effect." Potential panelists will "get more paranoid about giving their opinions," the source says. "I've never seen something like [what happened] with Deborah Rice. . . . It's rare for people to be removed from a panel."
Out of concern that panelists with industry ties are being allowed to serve, EWG has requested the conflict of interest documentation on reviewers for 2006 and 2007 IRIS assessment committees, the EWG source says. In addition, EWG is urging EPA to change its policies governing the creation of the IRIS panels. Specifically, EWG recommends EPA "collect information regarding all current and past financial ties between prospective panelists and companies who might benefit from weakened safety standards" and "create formal, public records of their determination of bias for each scientist selected as reviewer," according to the EWG report.
"For active panels where final risk numbers haven't been published, we're asking EPA to take a closer look at potential conflicts of interest," the EWG source says.
Environmentalists have challenged the credibility of EPA scientific review panels in the past, culminating in a 2001 GAO investigation into conflict of interest concerns regarding the agency's SAB panels and a series of revisions to SAB conflict of interest policies and procedures. The problem now is that not all assessments are reviewed by SAB, the EWG source says. Some higher profile chemicals are reviewed by SAB, while others like the PBDE assessment are reviewed by panels created by EPA contractors, the source explains.
Several sources note that contractors do not have the same ability as the SAB to require financial and other conflict of interest information from potential panelists.
But an EPA spokesman says, "Scientists serving on EPA's independent peer review panels are fully vetted for any real or perceived conflicts of interest to ensure that the Agency's peer reviews are open, transparent, and of the highest quality. If a conflict of interest is determined prior to the peer review meeting, that expert is not invited to serve on the peer review panel." The source declined to comment on the case in which Rice was initially found to have no conflicts but later removed, or on the question of whether EPA might change its policies regarding IRIS review panels.
According to the EWG source, one of the more "egregious" examples of
scientists with industry ties serving on EPA review panels is Elizabeth
Anderson of the consulting firm Exponent chairing a 2006 review panel of the agency's draft dibutyl phthalate (DBP) IRIS assessment. DBP is a plasticizer commonly found in food packaging and nail care products, among other plastic consumer products. The panel recommended weakening the safety standard for DBP by three-fold, according to EWG. While chairing the panel, "Anderson's employer Exponent, was simultaneously under contract with ACC's Phthalate Ester Panel to discredit a key epidemiological study that found everyday exposures [to phthalates] were linked to reproductive system damage in baby boys," according to EWG's report.
"We're trying to find out what Betty Anderson actually disclosed" before she was placed on the panel, the EWG source says. Anderson did not return a call seeking comment by publication time.
