Plastics Report Reviewed; Agency to Scrutinize Oft-Criticized Findings That Chemical Poses Little Risk
By MEG KISSINGER, CARY SPIVAK and SUSANNE RUST
A controversial report on chemicals found in baby bottles and hundreds of other household products is under intense review by the National Toxicology Program after the agency was swamped with complaints that the authors were unduly influenced by the chemical industry.
John Bucher, head of the toxicology program, said Wednesday that the agency is giving unprecedented scrutiny to the work of a panel studying the effects of bisphenol A, a chemical used as a hardening agent for plastic. The panel had downplayed the risks of bisphenol A, finding some concern for fetuses and small children but that adults had almost nothing to worry about.
The chemical, commonly used as dental sealants, eyeglasses, CDs, DVDs and as lining in aluminum cans, was found in the urine of 93% of Americans tested. More than 6 billion pounds are produced each year in the United States.
The Journal Sentinel reported in December that the study, by a panel of 12 scientists appointed by the National Institute of Environment Sciences, gave more weight to industry-funded studies and more leeway to industry-funded researchers. The newspaper found that the panel missed dozens of studies publicly available that the newspaper found online using a medical research Internet search engine.
Scientists, many of whom have spent years studying bisphenol A and have found it to be harmful, also criticized the panel’s report. These scientists have found that bisphenol A can cause breast cancer, testicular cancer, diabetes, hyperactivity, obesity, low sperm counts, miscarriage and a host of other reproductive failures in laboratory animals.
“In this case, there’s been so much criticism raised,” Bucher said.
The Journal Sentinel found that studies paid for by the chemical industry were much less likely to find damaging effects or disease. The newspaper’s stories were widely circulated in the scientific community. Bucher said the newspaper’s findings will be considered in the review, including criticism that the panel allowed a study to be translated by the American Plastics Council.
Bucher said the review would consider why the panel had rejected academic studies that found harm when looking at the effects of low doses of bisphenol A. The panel did not accept any studies that found an effect at low doses in its review of 742 studies.
Once the panel weeded out studies it believed had been done poorly, no studies remained that showed effects from low doses, panel chairman Robert Chapin said in an earlier interview.
“There’s a lot of bad science out there,” he said at the time.
Chapin could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
A growing number of scientists have found that bisphenol A causes harm to animals in low doses. And the National Academy of Science and the toxicology program itself have called for a radical reform in the way that government screens chemicals such as bisphenol A. But, so far, the government hasn’t budged from its original formula.
Michael Shelby, director of the government agency that selected the panel to evaluate bisphenol A, said he welcomed the review.
“We want to get it right,” he said. “That’s the way science works is through scrutiny and through peer review.” Shelby said he was not surprised at the extraordinary amount of criticism aimed at the report.
“It’s a hot topic, and there’s a considerable amount of literature,” he said.
The federal government is soliciting public comment on the panel report until Jan. 25. After that, agency staff will review comments, criticism and any new research on bisphenol A. Then, the toxicology program will issue a report that will be subject to another round of public comment, and, ultimately, a scientific review in June.
JOURNAL SENTINEL WATCHDOG REPORT
KEY FINDINGS
A Journal Sentinel investigation in December found:
— The federal government’s assurances that bisphenol A is a safe chemical are based on outdated and incomplete government studies and science mostly funded by the chemical industry.
— About 80% of academically and government-funded research found that bisphenol A is harmful in laboratory animals.
— A federal panel that advises the government issued a report in November downplaying the effects of bisphenol A.
JSOnline.com
To read the Journal Sentinel’s investigation: www.jsonline.com/ chemicalfallout
On the Web
To view the report: cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/chemicals/bisphenol/ bisphenol.html
Copyright 2008, Journal Sentinel Inc. All rights reserved. (Note: This notice does not apply to those news items already copyrighted and received through wire services or other media.)
(c) 2008 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.