{"id":2496,"date":"2012-12-21T14:06:34","date_gmt":"2012-12-21T19:06:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/nanotechnology\/?p=2496"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:01:27","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:01:27","slug":"teras-kidschemical-safety-website-on-non-profits-objectivity-and-independence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2012\/12\/21\/teras-kidschemical-safety-website-on-non-profits-objectivity-and-independence\/","title":{"rendered":"TERA\u2019s Kids+Chemical Safety website: On non-profits, objectivity and independence"},"content":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D.<\/em>, is a Senior Scientist.<\/em><\/p>\n

My <\/span>recent post<\/span><\/a>\u00a0about the new American Chemistry Council (ACC)-sponsored website, Kids + Chemical Safety, engendered some comments that go directly to the issues of scientific objectivity and independence.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The website says \u201cTERA [Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, manager of the site] was founded on the belief that an independent non-profit organization can provide a unique function to protect human health by conducting scientific research and development on risk issues in a transparent and collaborative fashion and communicating the results widely.\u201d\u00a0 The \u201cnon-profit\u201d descriptor \u2013 which TERA uses to describe itself no fewer than eight times on the site, including <\/span>four times on this one page alone<\/span><\/a> \u2013 seems intended to convey that TERA provides information that is purely objective and that it operates in a manner that is independent of who pays it to do its work.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

It\u2019s critical to recognize that being a non-profit does not conflate to, or somehow confer the right to claim, objectivity or independence.\u00a0 The National Rifle Association is a non-profit that clearly has strongly held and expressed opinions. \u00a0EDF is also a non-profit, but I don\u2019t pretend, as does TERA, that we don\u2019t have a particular perspective and position.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

So putting the issue of non-profit status entirely aside, we should judge TERA\u2019s claim that its website provides information that is objective and independent based on its content, and that\u2019s where it becomes quite clear that the information is neither.\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Objectivity<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

There are two categories of information provided on the website:\u00a0\u00a0 1) topics that are largely outside of the vested interests of the site\u2019s most prominent sponsor, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), and of its member companies; and 2) topics that fall squarely within those vested interests.\u00a0 These categories are treated very differently on the website.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Examples in the first category include pieces addressing <\/span>lead-based paint in old houses<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>choking hazards posed by some toys<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>carbon monoxide poisoning risks in the home<\/span><\/a>, and a <\/span>new timely piece on minimizing hazards to children during the holiday season<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 These pieces largely deal with legacy contamination, physical rather than chemical hazards, natural hazards posed by certain foods and plants, and incidental contaminants from malfunctioning furnaces or improper home use of equipment that uses fuels.\u00a0 While all of these risks warrant the attention of parents, they are also quite conspicuous in being far removed from the financial interests of the chemical industry.\u00a0 The essays appear to be reasonably objective, are written mainly by staff at the Cincinnati Drug and Poison Information Center, and point to how serious the risks are and how important it is that they be addressed.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Then there are the other topics covered on the site that do touch directly on chemical risks.\u00a0 Many of these are in the headlines and involve issues in which the chemical and related industries have enormous financial stakes.\u00a0 These address <\/span>whether chemicals in toys pose risks to children<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>whether organic food is safer<\/span><\/a>, and <\/span>asthma and its causes<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 These topics are treated wholly differently by TERA.\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

First, these essays are all written either by TERA staff or by staff from other chemical industry consulting firms, such as Exponent, that have a long track record of helping chemical companies avoid regulation.\u00a0 Second, they bend over backward to \u201cput those hazards into context,\u201d noting that many chemicals posing risks are naturally occurring and emphasizing risk factors other than chemicals.\u00a0 Third, they tout the efforts and money expended by companies to ensure the safety of their products, and maintain that extensive regulations are more than adequate to address the problem.\u00a0 Fourth, they ignore or seek to minimize research findings indicating potential or actual risk.\u00a0 Finally, they seek to shift responsibility for ensuring safety to the consumer or parent and away from manufacturers of chemicals or products containing chemicals at issue.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The piece on chemicals in toys is a case in point.\u00a0 Written by two scientists from Exponent, the main advice it offers is this:\u00a0 \u201cThe key things parents can do to minimize exposure to their children is to carefully select the toys they play with and follow the warning, if any, on the label.\u201d\u00a0 That\u2019s a handy shift in responsibility away from minimizing the presence of hazardous chemicals in such toys.\u00a0 Here\u2019s the advice offered:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Parents need to consider two things: can the chemicals in the toy result in an exposure, and is this exposure associated with a health risk.\u00a0 In toxicology, this is described in the following equation:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Risk = Exposure x Hazard<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0In other words, it is important to consider not just the chemical levels in the toy, but also whether they can cause an exposure above a safe level.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

How, then, is a parent to understand the risk, say, of their child playing with a toy that contains a phthalate plasticizer?\u00a0 For starters, the chemical won\u2019t be listed on the label. \u00a0Are these industry scientists really content telling parents they need not worry that a chemical known or suspected to cause development abnormalities is deliberately added to a toy by its manufacturer?\u00a0 And that the keys to their child being able to use the toy safely lie, not in ensuring such chemicals aren\u2019t used in toys, but rather in parents reading the label, minimizing the amount of time the child puts the toy in his or her mouth, and \u201cwashing the child\u2019s hands after use\u201d? <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

As I said in my last post, the new website is very clever.\u00a0 The intermixing of relatively objective pieces written by more independent experts with propaganda pieces written by consultants to the chemical industry is the modern version of the salesman\u2019s classic <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/span>bait-and-switch<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Double standards<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The remainder of the content of the site \u2013 pieces touting <\/span>risk assessment<\/span><\/a> and <\/span>peer review<\/span><\/a> \u2013 parrots longstanding industry talking points such as how even water is risky at high enough doses.\u00a0 It also reveals the double standards that industry proponents offer up as common fare in debates over chemical safety.\u00a0 To cite but one of many examples, after vociferously arguing that only peer-reviewed studies of chemicals should be deemed credible, the essay on asthma categorically dismisses a large body of peer-reviewed studies linking chemical exposures to asthma and related conditions.\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Moreover, the basis on which these studies are dismissed is a spurious argument: \u00a0that in such studies, \u201canimals are frequently exposed to extremely high concentrations, which do not represent our everyday exposures.\u201d\u00a0 Put aside the fact that the website elsewhere discusses the need to rely on animal studies, and that industry routinely uses the results of such studies to influence regulatory decisions.\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Conveniently omitted from this simplistic rendition is the longstanding scientific reason for why toxicologists typically use high doses of chemicals in studies using laboratory animals:\u00a0 Because a) we cannot for ethical reasons test chemicals directly on people, b) lab animals live far shorter lives than do we humans, and c) it is too costly and impractical (and unethical) to use large enough numbers of lab animals in a study to model the human population, such doses are used to ensure that a study will detect an effect, if one occurs, in a relatively short time and in a relatively small number of animals.\u00a0 While there are legitimate scientific debates as to whether such studies may actually obscure or miss effects that occur at low doses of exposure, resorting to such overly simplistic rhetoric does a disservice to the public discourse and reflects an underlying bias that permeates the website.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Independence<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Why do I question TERA\u2019s independence from its heavy reliance on funding from the chemical and related industries, including for this website?\u00a0 Given its long track record, if TERA were truly independent, it should be able to provide a long list of studies, comments filed with regulatory agencies and other documents wherein it proffers a conclusion or position that is in opposition to those taken by the parties who funded those studies or comments.\u00a0 I have yet to see such a case.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I would have no beef with TERA\u2019s website if it described itself as what it is:\u00a0 a source of information that reflects its own or the industry\u2019s positions and perspective, and is intended to provide a counterpoint to what parents or consumers may be hearing from others, EDF included.\u00a0 I will be the first to acknowledge there are (at least) two sides to this debate.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

But it is simply unacceptable for TERA to make the eerily Fox News-like claim that the site is our \u201cbest source of balanced, scientifically accurate chemical health information.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist. My recent post\u00a0about the new American Chemistry Council (ACC)-sponsored website, Kids + Chemical Safety, engendered some comments that go directly to the issues of scientific objectivity and independence. The website says \u201cTERA [Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, manager of the site] was founded on the belief that an …<\/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":[44,5009,56093],"tags":[39150,5013,5019,91812,731,5021,5017],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-2496","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-policy","category-health-science","category-industry-influence","tag-american-chemistry-council","tag-children-safety","tag-consumer-products","tag-dourson","tag-front-group","tag-chemical-industry-tactics","tag-risk-assessment"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2496","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=2496"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2496\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12673,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2496\/revisions\/12673"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2496"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2496"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2496"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=2496"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}