{"id":1476,"date":"2011-06-13T09:12:44","date_gmt":"2011-06-13T14:12:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/nanotechnology\/?p=1476"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:01:15","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:01:15","slug":"acc-resorts-to-smear-tactics-to-defend-its-cash-cows-formaldehyde-and-styrene","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2011\/06\/13\/acc-resorts-to-smear-tactics-to-defend-its-cash-cows-formaldehyde-and-styrene\/","title":{"rendered":"ACC resorts to smear tactics to defend its cash cows, formaldehyde and styrene"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><em>Richard Denison, Ph.D.<\/em><em>, is a Senior Scientist.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>An increasingly common tactic in modern bare-knuckle politics is to divert attention away from your own weakness or vulnerability by loudly \u2013 and falsely \u2013 accusing your opponent of having that very defect you possess but won\u2019t admit to.<\/p>\n<p>That Rovian tactic was on display last week, with the American Chemistry Council (ACC) as the accuser, and the <a href=\"http:\/\/ntp.niehs.nih.gov\/\">National Toxicology Program<\/a> (NTP) as its \u201copponent.\u201d\u00a0 Mind you, NTP is the nation\u2019s leading authoritative body on cancer-causing chemicals.<\/p>\n<p>The precipitating event?\u00a0 NTP\u2019s long-overdue release of its <a href=\"http:\/\/ntp.niehs.nih.gov\/go\/roc12\">12th Report on Carcinogens<\/a> (RoC).\u00a0 Among other additions NTP made since its last report was published way back in 2005, it had the audacity \u2013 according to ACC \u2013 to:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>upgrade its classification of <strong>formaldehyde<\/strong> to \u201c<em>Known to be a human carcinogen<\/em>,\u201d from its earlier classification (dating back to 1981) as \u201c<em>Reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen<\/em>,\u201d and<\/li>\n<li>for the first time include <strong>styrene<\/strong> on its list of chemicals linked to cancer, classifying it as \u201c<em>reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen<\/em>.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The accusation hurled at NTP was <a href=\"http:\/\/www.americanchemistry.com\/Media\/PressReleasesTranscripts\/ACC-news-releases\/ACC-Responds-to-HHS-12th-Report-on-Carcinogens.html\">this gem from ACC President and CEO, Cal Dooley<\/a>:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px\">\u201cWe are extremely concerned that politics may have hijacked the scientific process and believe this report by HHS is an egregious contradiction to what the President said early in his administration, \u2018\u2026That science and the scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my administration\u2026\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Talk about <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wiktionary.org\/wiki\/pot_calling_the_kettle_black\">the pot calling the kettle black<\/a> (per the \u201csecond, subtler interpretation\u201d of that phrase).<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p>ACC was so upset about the changes NTP made in its 12<sup>th<\/sup> report that it felt compelled to issue not one, but three, press releases on Friday; see <a href=\"http:\/\/www.americanchemistry.com\/Media\/PressReleasesTranscripts\/ACC-news-releases\/ACC-Responds-to-HHS-12th-Report-on-Carcinogens.html\">here<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.americanchemistry.com\/Media\/PressReleasesTranscripts\/ACC-news-releases\/HHS-Moves-Forward-with-Unfounded-Classification-of-Formaldehyde.html\">here<\/a> and <a href=\"http:\/\/www.americanchemistry.com\/Media\/PressReleasesTranscripts\/ACC-news-releases\/National-Toxicology-Program-Report-on-Styrene-No-Change-in-Safety-of-Plastic-Foodservice.html\">here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Now, I suppose it\u2019s unrealistic to expect that ACC would ever accept two of the largest volume chemicals in commerce being officially labeled as known or probable carcinogens.\u00a0 Both <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Formaldehyde\">formaldehyde<\/a> and <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Styrene\">styrene<\/a> are produced by dozens of companies in the U.S., each in amounts totaling tens of billions of pounds annually \u2013 major cash cows for the chemical industry.<\/p>\n<p>That\u2019s enough profit, I suppose, to make anyone be inclined to cling a bit. \u00a0Indeed, ACC veers toward misty-eyed when it describes formaldehyde as a \u201c<a href=\"http:\/\/www.americanchemistry.com\/Media\/PressReleasesTranscripts\/ACC-news-releases\/HHS-Moves-Forward-with-Unfounded-Classification-of-Formaldehyde.html\">simple molecule made of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon<\/a>\u201d that is \u201c<a href=\"http:\/\/www.formaldehydefacts.org\/\">a natural part of our world<\/a>\u201d \u2013 conveniently omitting that it is a known cause of nasopharyngeal cancers in people and the culprit in the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.edf.org\/documents\/9295_Denison_testimony_Toxics_Act.pdf\">poisoning of victims of Hurricane Katrina forced into FEMA trailers<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>And one could perhaps even understand their taking issue with NTP\u2019s finding of a causal link between formaldehyde and certain types of leukemia, given that EPA\u2019s draft assessment of formaldehyde was recently <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nap.edu\/catalog.php?record_id=13142\">criticized on that score by a panel convened by the National Research Council<\/a> (NRC), who called out EPA\u2019s lack of clarity and transparency in its methodology and its failure to identify a plausible mechanism by which the chemical could cause the disease.\u00a0 NTP as well as the <a href=\"http:\/\/monographs.iarc.fr\/ENG\/Monographs\/vol88\/index.php\">International Agency for Research on Cancer<\/a> (IARC) have placed greater weight than did the NRC panel on the rather compelling human epidemiological evidence in finding a causal link between formaldehyde exposure and certain leukemias.\u00a0 (It should also be noted that the NRC panel fully backed EPA\u2019s finding that links formaldehyde to nasopharyngeal cancers.)\u00a0 So it\u2019s probably fair to say that the linkage to leukemia is still an issue in scientific dispute, on one side of which NTP has clearly come down.<\/p>\n<p>But for ACC, with its massive vested commercial interest in these chemicals, to accuse NTP of playing politics with the science is really <a href=\"http:\/\/www.phrases.org.uk\/meanings\/beyond-the-pale.html\">beyond the pale<\/a>.\u00a0 On what basis does it assert such an outrageous claim?\u00a0 As <a href=\"http:\/\/switchboard.nrdc.org\/blogs\/jsass\/today_the_government_released.html\">NRDC\u2019s Jennifer Sass has noted on her blog<\/a>, it is the chemical industry that has held up the 12<sup>th<\/sup> report for more than four years, and has used every means at its disposal to delay EPA\u2019s assessments of these chemicals for even longer.\u00a0 Jennifer writes:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px\">The\u00a012th RoC\u00a0formaldehyde classification of a known human carcinogen is consistent with the determination by the World Health Organization, EPA, and a recent National Academies review (see my blog <a href=\"http:\/\/switchboard.nrdc.org\/blogs\/jsass\/national_academy_of_sciences_f.html\">here<\/a> for details and links). \u00a0Specifically, all these prestigious scientific bodies identified cancer risks of the nasal cavity, and some types of leukemia. \u00a0It was the leukemia risks that the chemical industry fought so hard against, even though the evidence comes from human epidemiology of industrial workers and embalmers. \u00a0In fact, industry has used political pressure to hold up EPA&#8217;s scientific assessment for 13 years, since 1998, and it&#8217;s still in draft form.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px\">Styrene has been tied up in similar political knots.\u00a0 Styrene is used to manufacture many plastics, latex paints, synthetic rubbers, polyesters and coatings. \u00a0It is also approved for use in food-contact materials, and as an FDA-approved synthetic flavoring in ice cream and candy (see 12th RoC fact sheet <a href=\"http:\/\/www.niehs.nih.gov\/about\/materials\/styrenefs.pdf\">here<\/a>, and EPA fact sheet <a href=\"http:\/\/www.epa.gov\/oppt\/chemfact\/styre-sd.txt\">here<\/a>).\u00a0 It is regulated as a Hazardous Air Pollutant by EPA, and considered possibly carcinogenic to humans by the World Health Organization. \u00a0EPA has been trying to update its styrene assessment since 1998, with no end in sight.<\/p>\n<p>ACC\u2019s hardball smear tactics in pushing back against the strong science-based findings that have led authorities around the world to classify formaldehyde and styrene as known and probable carcinogens, respectively, smacks of desperation.\u00a0 It\u2019s dirty politics, it\u2019s false, and it should stop.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist. An increasingly common tactic in modern bare-knuckle politics is to divert attention away from your own weakness or vulnerability by loudly \u2013 and falsely \u2013 accusing your opponent of having that very defect you possess but won\u2019t admit to. That Rovian tactic was on display last week, with &#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":100,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[44,56093,56096],"tags":[39150,39148,91633,39164,5021,8099],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-1476","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-policy","category-industry-influence","category-omboira","tag-american-chemistry-council","tag-carcinogens","tag-fda","tag-formaldehyde","tag-chemical-industry-tactics","tag-styrene"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1476","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/100"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1476"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1476\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12634,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1476\/revisions\/12634"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1476"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1476"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1476"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=1476"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}