{"id":3706,"date":"2014-04-02T16:42:08","date_gmt":"2014-04-02T21:42:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=3706"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:01:34","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:01:34","slug":"conflicted-west-virginia-chemical-spill-panel-is-repeating-many-of-cdcs-mistakes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2014\/04\/02\/conflicted-west-virginia-chemical-spill-panel-is-repeating-many-of-cdcs-mistakes\/","title":{"rendered":"Conflicted West Virginia chemical spill panel is repeating many of CDC\u2019s mistakes"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

[Use\u00a0this link\u00a0<\/a>to see all of our posts on Dourson.]<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Yesterday, the chair of a \u201cHealth Effects Expert Panel\u201d convened by the <\/span>West Virginia Testing Assessment Project<\/span><\/a> (WV TAP) held a <\/span>press conference<\/span><\/a> to present the panel\u2019s preliminary findings from its review of the \u201csafe\u201d level set by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for MCHM and other chemicals that spilled into the Elk River in early January and contaminated the drinking water of 300,000 West Virginia residents.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

A final report from the panel apparently won\u2019t be released until May, but a <\/span>press release issued yesterday<\/span><\/a> sounds far from preliminary in saying the panel supports CDC\u2019s methods, assumptions, toxicity data and \u201csafety factors.\u201d \u00a0While providing no details, the release indicates the panel is using the same <\/span>flawed and incomplete summary of a toxicity study used by CDC in its rush to set a safe level for MCHM<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 And it parrots CDC\u2019s erroneous use of the term \u201csafety factors,\u201d which is <\/span>at odds with the National Academy of Sciences\u2019 strong recommendation<\/span><\/a> that such term should be avoided as it is highly misleading. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In addition to choosing to rely on the same summary CDC used of a 1990 study conducted by MCHM\u2019s manufacturer, Eastman Chemical, the panel <\/span>accepted at face value Eastman\u2019s interpretation<\/span><\/a> that the study identified a no-effect level.\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>That conclusion has been questioned<\/span><\/a> and cannot be independently assessed because Eastman has not provided the actual quantitative data from the study. \u00a0Moreover, the study used a protocol dating from 1981 that has been extensively revised at least twice since then.\u00a0 These are among the <\/span>many problems identified with this study<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

It appears the panel\u2019s main departure from CDC was to assume the most highly exposed population would have been formula-fed infants instead of older children.\u00a0 The panel\u2019s \u201csafe\u201d level is 120 parts per billion (ppb), a value about 8-fold lower than CDC\u2019s level of 1 part per million (ppm).\u00a0 That seems an improvement over the CDC\u2019s methodology.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The panel\u2019s conflict of interest<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

However, the process by which the panel itself was formed and the clear conflict of interest (COI) involved \u2013 a conflict that only came to light in response to a reporter\u2019s questions at yesterday\u2019s press conference \u2013 are deeply concerning. \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The company selected by WV TAP to convene the Health Effects Expert Panel is named Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA), founded by Dr. Michael Dourson.\u00a0 TERA has a long history of working with the petrochemical and related industries.\u00a0 Acknowledged sources of industry funding <\/span>noted on its website<\/span><\/a> include the American Petroleum Institute, PPG Industries, Eli Lilly, the American Cleaning Institute (formerly called the Soap and Detergent Association), Procter & Gamble, and the Nickel Producers Environmental Research Association.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

While TERA was chosen by WV TAP to convene the Health Effects Expert Panel, TERA\u2019s role is far more substantial.\u00a0 TERA appointed its own founder, Dr. Dourson, as chair of the panel, and <\/span>Dourson was the only one of the panel\u2019s members to speak at yesterday\u2019s press conference<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

At the press conference, a reporter asked Dourson whether he or TERA had worked for Eastman Chemical, Dow Chemical (the maker of the other chemicals that spilled on January 9) or trade associations that represent their interests.\u00a0 Dourson\u2019s response to this question was apparently the first public disclosure of his affiliations with these companies.\u00a0 According to the <\/span>Charleston Daily Mail<\/span><\/a>:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

During the event, Dourson acknowledged his nonprofit organization TERA had conducted some work for Dow Chemical, one of the makers of a chemical believed to have been involved in the spill. He said they\u2019ve also done work for Eastman Chemical, the maker of crude MCHM, but not recently. TERA has done work for the state of West Virginia in the past as well, he said. <\/span><\/p>\n

On its website, TERA says it\u2019s received between 31 and 40 percent of its funding since 2008 from industry and industry related work. The rest comes from \u201cgovernment and other nonprofit work.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The fact that an individual and company that have done work directly for the companies that make the spilled chemicals were selected not only to convene the expert panel, but to chair it and serve as its spokesperson, points to a clear conflict of interest.\u00a0 And the fact that the conflict was only revealed because a reporter happened to ask the right question is even more troubling.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

A quick search for recent work done by Dourson and TERA funded by Dow turned up the following:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n