Health for Sale

This is a Fall 2001 Newsletter Featured Article.

Other Featured Articles:

• IHW Pilot Training Held at the New York Academy of Medicine
• Death by Degrees Report

The long arm of industry influence on the policies and regulations that are intended to protect public health is well known-or is it? Everyone is aware how corporate lobbyists dominate the Washington, DC legislative and regulatory scene, and of the revolving doors between corporate and federal agency payrolls-or are they?

Cases too big for the spin masters to conceal or transform into more positive pictures are now notorious. For example, the March 2000 "The Nation" article that chronicled how General Motors, Du Pont and Standard Oil of New Jersey, who joined together to put lead in gasoline, denied for decades the known health hazards of lead, hounded public-interest scientists who spoke out on lead dangers, and controlled health studies on lead.

However, there are many more subtle ways to influence how laws and regulations are written, interpreted, and executed. One tactic is to dominate debates on science advisory committees and coerce opinions of members so that recommendations are more industry friendly. It's easy. Corporate scientists and consultants are paid to sit on these committees. Public health scientists and advocates usually have to donate their time and expertise to help balance the scales. And, they have to be willing to withstand public attacks on their professional reputations when they have the courage to challenge corporate dominion of the process.

GBPSR Board Member Fights Back

GBPSR Board member Dick Clapp recently did just that-stood up, alone, in the face of opposition, to expose an "abuse of the process" in his service on the Dioxin Reassessment Review Subcommittee (DRRS). For his courage he was awarded Scientist of the Year by the Association of Scientists in the Public Interest.

The DRRS was charged with reviewing the scientific reassessment conducted over a 10 year period on the potential health effects of a family of substances called dioxins. It was one of the longest, most exhaustive investigations on a chemical or substance ever conducted by the EPA. The sub-committee served for 12 months.

Dr. Clapp became concerned that the process of making final recommendations to the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Executive Committee was being compromised by at least two industry-oriented members of the sub-committee, if not more, who wished to delay the release of the long-awaited dioxin reassessment.

Concern over Abuse of Process Prompts Letter to Executive Committee

He was so concerned that he wrote a letter to the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Executive Committee urging changes in the letter to be sent to EPA director Christine Whitman:

Excerpts from the letter include:

"…the process leading to the final draft of the Dioxin Reassessment Review Subcommittee (DRRS) was not transparent, and, in fact, was subverted by at least one member. A member of the Subcommittee wrote in an e-mail, 'The drafting of this report has become murky; it needs to become more transparent... if we are seeking to develop a thoughtful document which is the product of group discussion rather than merely a compilation of individual views… With each succeeding draft there are new things submitted by unidentified members.' Another member of the SAB said, "At times I felt that, instead of working in an open and collegial process, we had to maintain constant vigilance for members who were trying to see what could be slipped into the document without other members noticing. I think this sort of behavior compromises the tradition of civility, openness, honesty and integrity that should define the SAB committees."

Dr. Clapp went on to describe how one member of the SAB ignored a specific sanction on communications with colleagues who had a financial interest in the outcome of the Reassessment and its recommendations.

His letter to the Executive Committee concluded,

"My reason for bringing these examples to your attention is that I believe they illustrate abuse of process by at least one member of the DRRS that has undermined the effort to provide thoughtful advice to the EPA. In spite of the best efforts of many well-meaning Subcommittee members and the best intentions of the Chair and Staff, I do not believe that we have succeeded in our task. I urge you to re-draft the transmittal letter to Administrator Whitman that acknowledges these problems, commends the EPA for its work on the Dioxin Reassessment, and says it does not need to submit further revisions of the document for SAB review."

One Person's Impact

Due to the letter that he sent on his own, without any official support from sympathetic colleagues, the Executive Committee of the EPA Science Advisory Board re-wrote parts of the cover letter and the Executive Summary that were sent with the Subcommittee Report to the EPA. One person certainly can make a difference.