{"id":308,"date":"2008-03-19T09:20:40","date_gmt":"2008-03-19T13:20:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=308"},"modified":"2008-03-19T11:27:42","modified_gmt":"2008-03-19T15:27:42","slug":"conflicts-of-interest-within-epa%e2%80%99s-scientific-advisory-panels-investigated","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2008\/03\/conflicts-of-interest-within-epa%e2%80%99s-scientific-advisory-panels-investigated\/","title":{"rendered":"Conflicts of Interest Within EPA\u2019s Scientific Advisory Panels Investigated"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, March 18, 2008) Congress on Monday opened an investigation into allegations of potential conflicts of interests among scientists appointed to panels that advise the EPA on the toxic effects of chemicals. Members of EPA\u2019s science advisory panel have been linked to powerful chemical manufacturers and interest groups.<\/font><\/p>\n

Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich), chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich), chair of the committee\u2019s Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, have launched an investigation into the chemical industry\u2019s undue influence on EPA panels. This investigation comes in light of last summer\u2019s firing of Deborah Rice, PhD, a respected toxicologist from the Maine Centers for Disease Control, and a panel chair, at the request of the chemical industry lobby group, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), after she raised concerns about the flame retardant, deca-BDE or Deca, and urged the Maine state legislature to ban the chemical. The ACC complained that Dr. Rice \u201cexhibited an appearance of a lack of impartiality.\u201d<\/font><\/p>\n

The two chairmen, in a strongly worded letter<\/a> to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, are demanding an explanation for the double standard that allows individuals with direct financial ties to the companies making the chemicals under review to remain on scientific advisory panels while excluding public health scientists whose professional opinions differ from the views of the chemical industry.<\/font><\/p>\n

“The routine use of chemical industry employees and representatives in EPA’s scientific review process, together with EPA’s dismissal of Dr. Rice raises serious questions with regard to EPA’s conflict of interest rules and their application,” said Rep. Dingell.<\/font><\/p>\n

Cited cases include eight scientists who were members or consultants to advisory panels to assess the health effects of toxic chemicals. These scientists were also found to be receiving research support from the chemical industry on the same chemicals they were examining, while two were actually employed by the manufacturer or by a company affiliated with the manufacturer. One consultant, while on the panel, promoted his own industry-supported research arguing that the chemical under review was not carcinogenic. The letter also requests documents related to Dr. Rice’s dismissal, as well as records related the appointment of scientists with chemical industry ties.<\/font><\/p>\n

Among the appointments questioned:<\/font><\/p>\n