• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Report on Chemical's Safety Called Biased

Posted on: Tuesday, 7 August 2007, 06:17 CDT

By Liz Szabo

ALEXANDRIA, Va. -- A government report on the safety of a controversial ingredient in plastic is biased toward the chemical industry and downplays potential risks to the public, according to scientists and environmentalists who spoke at a hearing Monday.

Critics are concerned about the chemical compound bisphenol A, which animal studies have linked to reproductive problems, obesity and breast and prostate cancers.

An expert panel will finalize a report this week that will help the National Toxicology Program (NTP) decide whether bisphenol A poses a threat to human reproduction and development. The findings prepared for the NTP, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services, could affect how the chemical is regulated.

Researchers such as Frederick vom Saal of the University of Missouri-Columbia say the report has been "tainted" from the start. In February, the Environmental Working Group revealed that an early draft was written by an outside contractor with ties to the chemical industry. Though the consultant has been fired, many scientists say the report revised by the panel of experts still favors chemical manufacturers.

In their written statements, Ana Soto and her colleagues from Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston contend that studies financed by industry get more weight in the NTP report than those with independent funding, which often find serious risks. According to their analysis, the draft considers 71% of industry-financed studies worthy of consideration, compared with only 30% of non-industry papers.

Researchers who filed comments about the draft state that they have found nearly 300 factual errors. In their statement, the Tufts group was concerned enough about the mistakes to ask, "Is the panel purposefully misrepresenting data or grossly misunderstanding it?"

Michael Shelby, who directs the toxicology program's reproductive center, notes that government and industry studies may be weighted more heavily for good reason. They tend to be larger and designed according to international standards, with the explicit objective of addressing safety, he says. Studies by university researchers often are smaller and address questions of basic biology rather than safety.

Focusing on the funding source of studies "misses the point," says the American Chemistry Council's Steve Hentges, who says he sees no bias in the panel's work. "They are looking at how well the studies are conducted. It doesn't have anything to do with who did the study."

Some doctors say the government should do more to educate the public, especially pregnant women, whose developing babies may face the greatest risk from exposure to the compound. Even without proof of harm to humans, the government should warn women of childbearing age to limit their exposure, says Beth Jordan, medical director of the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals.

"It's important for women and families to have state-of-the-art recommendations," she says, "so they can plan their pregnancies appropriately and assume the healthiest lifestyle." (c) Copyright 2005 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

Source: USA TODAY

More News in this Category