{"id":262,"date":"2009-12-15T17:08:52","date_gmt":"2009-12-15T22:08:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/nanotechnology\/?p=262"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:00:49","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:00:49","slug":"immaculate-deception-part-2-chemical-industry-front-group-calls-for-ban-on-bisphenol-a","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2009\/12\/15\/immaculate-deception-part-2-chemical-industry-front-group-calls-for-ban-on-bisphenol-a\/","title":{"rendered":"Immaculate deception, part 2: Chemical industry front group calls for ban on bisphenol A"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

I\u2019ll bet that got your attention.\u00a0 Surely I jest, you\u2019re thinking.\u00a0 Well, on December 2, Montana Public Radio\u2019s Evening Edition<\/a> included a segment in which a spokesperson for the new chemical industry front group, the Coalition for Chemical Safety<\/a>\u00a0about which I blogged a few weeks ago<\/a>, publicly calls for an all-out ban on the controversial endocrine-disrupting chemical bisphenol A<\/a> (BPA).\u00a0 Here\u2019s the clip<\/a>\u00a0(5 MB mp3 file).<\/p>\n

Listen, and you\u2019ll hear a spokesperson for the new Helena, MT, chapter of the Coalition for Chemical Safety being interviewed while handing out Coalition literature in the state capitol rotunda during an event organized by the chapter.\u00a0 She describes her concern as a mom over the use of BPA in kids\u2019 products, and even criticizes the Food and Drug Administration’s past reliance\u00a0only on industry studies to conclude BPA is safe.\u00a0 You\u2019ll also hear the reporter note that the Coalition wants to \u201cban BPA and other chemicals that could be harmful.\u201d<\/p>\n

Cognitive Dissonance<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

What\u2019s going on here?\u00a0 Have we entered some kind of parallel universe?\u00a0 After all, a prominent Coalition member that is its suspected \u2013 though still masked \u2013 main backer, the American Chemistry Council<\/a> (ACC), is a steadfast champion of BPA\u00a0(see its \u201cFacts About BPA\u201d website<\/a>).\u00a0 ACC has spent millions fighting any restrictions on BPA proposed anywhere in the country.\u00a0 Just google BPA and the name \u201cSteven Hentges,\u201d ACC\u2019s main lobbyist for BPA \u2013 I just did, and got nearly 20,000 hits.<\/p>\n

Together with ACC\u2019s sister organization, the Society of the Plastics Industry<\/a>, the chemical industry has just launched a $10 million campaign<\/a> to defend plastics, focusing on\u00a0those containing or made using BPA.<\/p>\n

So how to explain a Coalition spokesperson promoting a BPA ban in its name?\u00a0 Was this a fluke, a spokesperson \u201cgoing rogue\u201d (to use a currently popular term)?\u00a0 Or part of an orchestrated attempt to confuse the public?<\/p>\n

In my earlier post<\/a>, I noted the emergence of the Coalition as the latest example of an \u201castroturf<\/a>\u201d (aka fake grassroots) organization, this one started by the chemical industry.\u00a0 Well, it now looks like this group is willing to go to considerable extremes to \u201cprove\u201d its grassroots-ness.<\/p>\n

If I was worried about exposing my kids to a chemical like BPA, I\u2019d certainly be attracted to a group called the Coalition for Chemical Safety.\u00a0 I have every reason to believe that the Coalition spokesperson featured in the Montana Public Radio story is sincere in voicing her concerns about BPA.\u00a0 Which means one simply has to wonder how much she knows or has been told about the real agenda of the Coalition she\u2019s joined.<\/p>\n

Now look at the list of members of the Coalition<\/a> posted on its website.\u00a0 Click on Montana and you\u2019ll see, alongside the usual suspects like the Montana Agribusiness Association and the Montana Chamber of Commerce, some surprising entries:\u00a0 Bella Birthing Natural Birth Education and Doula Care, Top Sign & Graphics and the Pipsqueak Second Chance Boutique.\u00a0 Some other states\u2019 listings have equally incongruous lists of businesses.<\/p>\n

The afore-mentioned Coalition spokesperson is from one of the small businesses listed in Montana.<\/p>\n

A front group, indeed<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

What does this episode say about the Coalition and its tactics?\u00a0 In a new legislative brief<\/a>\u00a0(pdf) it has issued on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Coalition describes itself as \u201can advocacy organization\u201d that \u201ccounts industry, environmentalists, consumers and workers among its targeted<\/em><\/strong> members.\u201d \u00a0I have added the emphasis to flag a telling caveat in that statement, one that reflects the fact that no environmentalists, consumers or workers have signed up as members!<\/p>\n

After the reporter for Montana Public Radio was informed that the Coalition is a front group for the chemical industry, the station broadcast an update to its story<\/a>\u00a0(2.5 MB mp3 file).\u00a0 In it, the Coalition\u2019s mystery Executive Director, Joe Householder<\/a>, surfaces once again to object to the use of the term front group as too \u201cperjorative\u201d a characterization.<\/p>\n

As I reported in my earlier post<\/a>, the Coalition\u2019s website is managed by DDC Advocacy<\/a>, a well-known astroturfing company<\/a> that works closely with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.\u00a0 On its website, DDC Advocacy boasts about one of its astroturf successes<\/a>.\u00a0 Here\u2019s how the website describes the conditions before DDC Advocacy came to the rescue:<\/p>\n