{"id":6921,"date":"2017-09-22T14:20:08","date_gmt":"2017-09-22T19:20:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=6921"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:02:00","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:02:00","slug":"proof-in-pudding-epa-toxics-nominee-dourson-has-consistently-recommended-safe-levels-for-chemicals-that-would-weaken-health-protections","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2017\/09\/22\/proof-in-pudding-epa-toxics-nominee-dourson-has-consistently-recommended-safe-levels-for-chemicals-that-would-weaken-health-protections\/","title":{"rendered":"Proof in pudding: EPA toxics nominee Dourson has consistently recommended \u201csafe\u201d levels for chemicals that would weaken health protections"},"content":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D.,\u00a0<\/em>is a Lead Senior Scientist.<\/p>\n

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

Earlier this week the New York Times<\/em> ran an article <\/a>on the Trump Administration\u2019s nominee to run the EPA toxics office, Michael Dourson<\/a>.\u00a0 The article detailed Dourson\u2019s longstanding ties to the chemical industry, citing examples of work he did on specific chemicals paid for by the companies that make or use them.<\/p>\n

What is remarkable about Dourson\u2019s work in light of his nomination is not just his conflicts, but the fact that his paid work consistently has led to him recommend \u201csafe\u201d levels of his clients\u2019 chemicals that were less health-protective than government standards or guidelines prevailing at the time.\u00a0 The Times<\/em> article referred to an analysis by EDF in discussing the example of the pesticide chlorpyrifos.\u00a0 Chlorpyrifos is one of 10 chemicals included in EDF\u2019s analysis, which is provided in this post. \u00a0<\/p>\n

EDF first reviewed papers and reports that Dourson or other employees of his company, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA), co-authored that focused on specific chemicals and that disclosed the work was paid for by companies or trade associations with a vested financial interest in those chemicals.\u00a0 (The one exception is PFOA, where Dourson was hired by the state of West Virginia based on the recommendation of its producer<\/a>, DuPont.)<\/p>\n

We then focused on the subset of those papers or reports that argued for a specific numeric \u201crisk value\u201d or release or exposure limit for the chemical in question.\u00a0 That left us with 10 such chemicals.<\/p>\n

Finally, we compared Dourson\u2019s recommended value for a chemical with existing standards or guidelines issued by federal or state government agencies or, in their absence\u00a0in two cases, by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). \u00a0[Note:\u00a0 Because what matters most regarding the \u201csafe\u201d level of a chemical is that for the most sensitive endpoint, our comparisons are generally between the values for endpoints that Dourson and others designate to be the most sensitive. The values being compared, therefore, may not always be for the same endpoint, or derived from the same type of risk value.]<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The table here (click to enlarge) summarizes the results of our analysis.\u00a0 It shows who funded Dourson\u2019s work on each chemical. \u00a0Details of the analysis with links to relevant sources are\u00a0available here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Several features of this analysis bear mention:<\/p>\n