RWOS Redux: Endocrine Disruptors

A
while back, I wrote (twice) about the nettlesome issue of rel="tag"
href="http://scienceblogs.com/corpuscallosum/2007/02/endocrine_disruptors.php">endocrine
disruptors.  A more detailed post was offered at href="http://scienceblogs.com/terrasig/2007/02/lavender_and_tea_tree_oils_may.php">Terra
Sig.  The reason this is a nettlesome problem is
that it is an area with potentially huge implications, but with not
enough hard data.  



The huge implications come in two forms: if we are not cautious enough,
we could be inadvertently lowering our fertility by exposure to
chemicals that interfere with normal endocrine function.  But
if we are too cautious, we could impose burdensome regulations on
industry, and needlessly do away with otherwise useful products.



Now, we get some disturbing news about the agency that is overseeing
the research on this topic:

href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-chemicals4mar04,0,3004664.story?coll=la-home-headlines">

face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"> href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-chemicals4mar04,0,3004664.story?coll=la-home-headlines">Public
health agency linked to chemical industry

The work of a federal risk-assessment center is
guided by a company with manufacturing ties. Some scientists see bias.

By Marla Cone, Times Staff Writer

March 4, 2007

face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">For nearly a decade, a
federal agency has been
responsible for assessing the dangers that chemicals pose to
reproductive health. But much of the agency's work has been conducted
by a private consulting company that has close ties to the chemical
industry, including manufacturers of a compound in plastics that has
been linked to reproductive damage...



...The center's work is considered important to public health because
people are exposed to hundreds of chemicals that have been shown to
skew the reproductive systems of newborn lab animals and could be
causing similar damage in humans. Chemical companies and industry
groups have staunchly opposed regulation of the compounds and have
developed their own research to dispute studies by government and
university scientists...



...Sciences International's president boasted about its close
collaboration with the federal reproductive health center, as well as
the EPA and other federal agencies, in a letter soliciting R.J.
Reynolds as a client in 1999.



Signed by company founder Elizabeth Anderson, the letter stated that
Sciences International "serves the private sector, including many trade
associations, on a wide range of health and risk assessment issues.
However, we are different from most other consulting firms in that we
also currently serve government agencies," which, the letter said,
gives the company "a unique credibility to negotiate with regulators on
behalf of our private sector clients."...

Of course, being connected to industry is not inherently a sign of
wrongdoing.  But when it comes to scientific endeavors,
objectivity is key.  Is there evidence of a lack of
objectivity in this case?

face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">The role of Sciences
International in the federal
center's work came to the attention of Environmental Working Group, a
nonprofit advocacy group focused on environmental health, last month
after some scientists who saw the report on BPA complained that it was
biased toward the industry's position that low doses have no effect.



"We are unaware of any other instance in which nearly all of the
functions of a public health agency have been outsourced to a private
entity," wrote Richard Wiles, the working group's executive director,
in a letter to the director of the NIH's National Toxicology Program,
which runs the reproductive health center. "Questions about the
objectivity and adequacy of this review process and the reviewers must
be resolved before a final decision on BPA is reached."



Debate over BPA is one of the most contentious environmental health
issues faced by government and industry. Traces are found in the bodies
of nearly all Americans tested, and low levels — similar to
amounts that can leach from infant and water bottles — mimic
estrogen and have caused genetic changes in animals that lead to
prostate cancer, as well as decreased testosterone, low sperm counts
and signs of early female puberty, according to more than 100
government-funded studies. About a dozen industry-funded studies found
no effects.

The
compound they are referring to is href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A" rel="tag">bisphenol-A
(BPA).  More than 100 independent studies indicate
there could be a problem; approximately 12 industry-funded studies
found no
problem.  A bit lopsided, it would seem.  It would
take a sophisticated analysis of all the studies, though, to see if the
minority reports have any merit.



Sciences International has prepared a report for the EPA,
that is due for review on 3/5/2007, before the NIH's Center for the
Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction.



Is this part of the Republican War on Science?  It sure seems
like it, but I should point out that the arrangement has existed since
1998, obviously before Bush took office.  So perhaps it is
just a regular bad idea, not a Republican bad idea.  Some
investigative reporting would have to be done to see how this
arrangement came to be.  Still, it
is a bad idea, and the arrangement should be subject to greater
scrutiny.  



The article says that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Rep. Henry A.
Waxman (D-Los Angeles) are on the case.  The controversial
industry report is likely to draw scrutiny.  But the LAT
reports that the review is going to be presided over by employees of
Sciences International.  As kids these days say, "What's up
with that?"  Shouldn't the NIH be running the show?