FYI Article: Integrity in Science Watch- Noveember 03, 2008 Conflicts of Interest

[Guest guest]

Integrity in Science Watch - Nov. 3, 2008

Nov. 3, 2008:

Food Fight Fixed?

FDA Blasted on BPA Report

EPA's Tool Muddies Water

and more . . .

Dietary Committee's Industry Ties Ignored

The Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services

failed to tell the public about relevant conflicts of interest on the newly

impaneled Dietary Guidelines advisory committee, which a year from now will

recommend changes to the government's daily food intake advice. A Center for

Science in the Public Interest analysis reveals that nearly half the roster's 13

members have taken funding from the food and pharmaceutical industries. None of

those industry ties were disclosed by the government; and, according to

Post, director of the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, none received

waivers declaring that their expertise was needed to round out the committee,

which the law requires before scientists with conflicts of interest can serve on

federal advisory committees. The committee, announced Oct. 14, met for the first

time last week.

Members of the committee with relevant conflicts of interest

include:

a.. van Horn, a professor of preventive medicine at

the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, who

coauthored a 2007 study published in the Journal of the American Dietetic

Association that was partially funded by General Mills.

b.. Miriam , director of the Tufts University

Hancock Center for Physical Activity and Nutrition, who disclosed 15 months ago

that she took over $10,000 from Mission Pharmacal, the maker of the calcium

supplement Citracal (which is sold by Bayer Pharmaceuticals), and over $10,000

from Lluminari Inc., a producer of health-related multi-media content for

General Mills, PepsiCo, StoneyField Farm, Newman's Own, and other companies; and

c.. Rimm, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at

Harvard University, whose faculty biography discloses he receives funding for

his obesity and diabetes research from Sanofi-Synthelabo and GlaxoKline.

Three other members of the committee have conducted research

or received consulting fees from pharmaceutical firms that market weight-control

and other drugs that are relevant to dietary advice.

Science Board Blasts BPA Report Despite Conflicts

The Food and Drug Administration's Science Board subcommittee

reviewing the agency bisphenol A report last week blasted the agency for

declaring the plasticizer safe, saying the agency used unacceptable criteria for

selecting studies to inform its deliberations. The subcommittee report said the

agency relied on inadequate data and underestimated BPA exposures for infants

and children, who are most vulnerable to its effects. The subcommittee reached

its conclusion despite consumer-group fears that financial conflicts of interest

would taint the views of its chair, Philbert, who heads a center at the

University of Michigan that receives funds from Dow Chemical, which manufactures

BPA. An FDA investigation last week cleared Philbert of the conflict of interest

allegations, although it stipulated that he should not vote at the Science Board

subcommittee's meeting.

Despite the panel's negative review, the FDA reaffirmed its

defense of BPA, claiming government agencies worldwide believe " that current

levels of exposure to BPA through food packaging do not pose an immediate health

risk. " The FDA also asserted Canada is taking steps to restrict the substance

only " out of an abundance of caution. "

The Science Board subcommittee was not the only voice

expressing concern about the health risks associated with BPA last week, 36

scientists published a commentary in Environmental Health Perspectives attacking

the FDA for declaring BPA safe. " While the U.S. FDA and [European Food Safety

Authority] have deemed two industry-funded GLP (good laboratory practices)

studies of BPA to be superior to hundreds of studies funded by the US-NIH and

NIH counterparts in other countries, the GLP studies on which the agencies based

their decisions have serious conceptual and methodological flaws, " according to

the commentary.

Meanwhile, prior to the committee's statement, Rep.

DeLauro (D-CT) joined Congressmen Dingell (D-MI) and Bart Stupak (D-MI) in

questioning whether conflicts of interest might influence the FDA's findings on

BPA. In a letter to FDA commissioner von Eischenbach, DeLauro noted Dow

Chemical's $15 million grant to Philbert's center. ``There appears to be a

complete undermining of the decision-making process at FDA on the BPA issue and

I fear that this case demonstrates that the conflict of interest standards

governing scientific advisory panels are inadequate,'' DeLauro said.

EPA Lowers Standard for Removing Water Toxins

The Environmental Protection Agency has created a new tool for

determining toxic levels in drinking water which effectively raises the bar for

emergency cleanup and remediation efforts, Inside EPA reports (subscription

required). The new tool, released on an internal EPA site, will be used by

regional EPA officials to determine if pollution levels have reached the

so-called " Removal Action Levels " (RALs) for dealing with toxic compounds under

the Superfund law. Possible responses include removing the contaminants or

providing bottled water to people living near the contamination site. The new

rule results in an online calculator that, according to Inside EPA, raises the

RALs up to 60 percent above the RALs set in 1998. The new tool, unlike the

previous calculator, will not be made available to the public.

Odds and Ends

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory, one of the

Department of Energy's smallest national labs, held an Industry Growth Forum

last week sponsored by the electricity industry.... The Washington Post reports

the Fish and Wildlife Service will again try to remove the northern Rockies gray

wolf from the endangered species list.... The Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry cites 28 locations around the country where asbestos pollution

from a mine in Libby, Montana has spread....

Cheers and Jeers

a.. Cheer to Greg Burns of the Chicago Tribune for

disclosing in an article on medical implants that surgeons Hungerford and

Reilly consulted for Stryker, and Berger and Maltry

consulted for Zimmer Holdings. Zimmer Holdings, according to the article, paid

out more than $800 million to 6,500 doctors, hospitals and medical associations

between 2002 and 2006. In 2007, the article adds, 48 doctor-consultants received

$1 million or more apiece.

b.. Jeer to Camille Sweeney at the New York Times for

failing to disclose in an article on dermatitis that Simpson, an assistant

professor at Oregon Health and Science University, coauthored in the July 2008

issue of the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology a study on

dermatitis that was funded by the Dermatology Foundation, which lists Galderma

Laboratories, the manufacturer of the moisturizing cream Cetaphil, as a $1

million contributor. Simpson claims in the article that the cream is " worthy of

further study. "

--------------------------------------------------------------

Please circulate. To sign up for Integrity in Science Watch,

send an email to science@.... Got a tip? Send it to science@....

Tell-a-friend!

If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up

for Center for Science in the Public Interest.

This message was sent to Information@.... Visit your

subscription management page to modify your email communication preferences or

update your personal profile. To stop ALL email from Center for Science in the

Public Interest, click to remove yourself from our lists (or reply via email

with " remove or unsubscribe " in the subject line).