Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 11/24
-
(ACC Mentioned) Editorial Board Resigns - Protest Corporate TakeOver IJOEH
Nov 24, 2017 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Jennifer Sass
For 22 years the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health (IJOEH) was the leading scientific journal on global health hazards, and on criticizing the corporate manipulation of science and policy. -
Johnson County Moms: Trump Nominee Wrong for Our Environment
Nov 24, 2017 | Indy Star
By Stacie Davidson and Kari Rhinehart
-
REACH Exposure Scenario Group Looks for Improvements
Nov 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Chynoweth
Stakeholders of the REACH Exchange Network on Exposure Scenarios (Enes) have been discussing a draft programme that will take its work through until 2020, at its eleventh meeting in Helsinki this week. -
Foot-Dragging over Pesticide Adds to EU's Reputation as Unwieldy
Nov 23, 2017 | Financial Times
By Rochelle Toplensky
Sometimes in EU affairs the way a decision is taken, or not, sheds more light on the way the bloc operates than the decision itself.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Editorial Board Resigns - Protest Corporate TakeOver IJOEH
Nov 24, 2017 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Jennifer Sass
For 22 years the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health (IJOEH) was the leading scientific journal on global health hazards, and on criticizing the corporate manipulation of science and policy. But a new publisher appears to be transforming it into a mouthpiece for industry consultants.
In 2015 the IJOEH publisher, Maney, was taken over by a larger publishing company, Taylor & Francis (T&F), which then told the Editor-in-Chief, Dr. David Egilman, in February 2016 that it would not be renewing his contract which ran out at the end of that year, December 2016.
Without consulting anyone on the editorial board of the journal, T&F hired chemical industry consultant Andrew Maier as the new Editor-in-Chief. Maier works with industry consulting firm TERA, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment. TERA has been at the center of public and Congressional fire recently, over the work of its founder, Michael Dourson, and TERA on behalf of Dow Chemical, CropLife America, the American Chemistry Council, the American Petroleum Institute, Koch Industries and other clients to weaken the science and undermine regulation of toxic chemicals that are poisoning people all over this country. Dourson is the Trump nominee to run the science office of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the work of TERA runs afoul of EPA’s mission to regulate and reduce pollution. (see details of TERA’s misdeeds documented in reports by Sharon Lerner for The Intercept)
The editorial board wrote a letter identifying its concerns with Maier (direct link to letter in RetractionWatch). As an example of Maier’s work with TERA for corporate clients the editorial board cited the case of diacetyl, an artificial butter flavoring linked to severe lung disease in exposed workers. “Dr. Maier and his co-workers at [corporate consulting firm] TERA recommended a limit of 200 parts per billion in air, based on a study in which 15 mice were exposed up to 30 hours/week for 12 weeks. Dr. Egilman and co-workers criticized the TERA authors for discarding epidemiologic data and recommended 1 ppb or less in their analysis including extensive human data. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health [NIOSH] recommended a limit of 5 parts per billion in air. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists [ACGIH] recommended 10 ppb.” Maier’s recommended limit is 40-times less protective than recommendation of NIOSH, and 20-times less protective than the ACGIH.
In addition to replacing Egilman with Maier, in March 2017 T&F announced that it was withdrawing an article published by Dr. Egilman in IJOEH in 2016. The articleis called, “The Production of Corporate Research to Manufacturer Doubt About the Health Hazards of Products: An Overview of the Exponent Bakelite™ Simulation Study” (Full article here). Bakelite™ was an asbestos-containing plastic produced and sold by Union Carbide for decades starting in the 1930’s, and widely used for making telephones, radios, and other electronic equipment. In the normal course of its use, workers would cut, saw, and drill the plastic, creating airborne asbestos. Union Carbide has since been sued by hundreds of workers that have developed deadly cancer linked to occupational exposures to Bakelite dust.
Infamous chemical industry consultant Dennis Paustenbach, with consulting firm Cardno ChemRisk, conducted a study that cost over a million dollars (presumably paid by Union Carbide) to conduct exposure simulation studies on Bakelite (such studies are listed as one of his ‘key services’ for clients). This is not the first time that Paustenbach was paid to minimize asbestos hazards in products on behalf of companies fighting injury claims by workers and their families (see 2016 detailed report by the Center for Public Integrity: Ford spent $40 million to reshape asbestos science) The studies provided evidence useful to Union Carbide in defending liability lawsuits. Paustenbach’s study was published in 2005, concluding that, “…assuming an exposure scenario in which a worker uses power tools to cut and sand products molded from BMMA-5353 [Bakelite] and similar products in the manner evaluated in this study, airborne asbestos concentrations should not exceed current or historical occupational exposure limits”. In other words, whatever levels of asbestos the exposed workers may have been exposed to from Bakelite products, it was within the legally allowed workplace limits.
Dr. Egilman’s article observed that the bandsaw cutting speed in the simulated study would incorrectly minimize asbestos exposures. Egilman writes, “Exponent increased the time denominator by starting the clock minutes before any activity commenced, and by performing the work process at a farcically slow pace... Paustenbach took 14 min and 29 s to make five 4″-long cuts in the reformulated Bakelite™ pieces that were 6″ wide. No worker could work this slowly and not get fired”. By using an artificially slow saw speed the simulation would produce less airborne dust, leading to an artificially low amount of exposure to the deadly asbestos dust.
The IJOEH editorial board repeatedly corresponded with corporate executives at T&F regarding both Maier’s appointment without the knowledge or involvement of any editors, and the unexplained retraction of the Bakelite paper. In mid-November 2017, after being stonewalled by the publisher, all 22 members of the IJOEH editorial board wrote to the National Library of Medicine requesting that the journal be de-listed from the online library for all issues published after 2016. De-listing would make it less publicly available, and therefore reduce its ‘impact factor’, a standard measurement of how useful and well-respected a scientific journal is.
The events were reported in ProPublica and Confined Space this week. ProPublica reported that it obtained an email from T&F stating that Paustenbach, “has been in touch to request that we retract Egilman’s [Bakelite] article”, although Paustenbach denied this in an email to ProPublica.
This week the entire editorial board resigned in protest (see RetractionWatch). At a time when the chemical industry has taken over the EPA, we can’t afford to lose one of the few independent scientific journals willing to publish peer reviewed critiques of industry practices. The corporate takeover of this intrepid journal will dim the light of truth about toxic chemicals causing illness and death in the workplace.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/jennifer-sass/editorial-board-resigns-protest-corporate-takeover-ijoeh
-
Johnson County Moms: Trump Nominee Wrong for Our Environment
Nov 24, 2017 | Indy Star
By Stacie Davidson and Kari Rhinehart
Since 2010, 42 children in Johnson County have been diagnosed with cancer, far higher than the national average. Ours were two of those children, and cancer took one of their lives.
Our 13-year-old daughter Emma had Glioblastoma multiforme, a rare brain tumor more commonly found in middle-aged adults. Our 13-year-old son Zane had acute lymphoblastic leukemia, a rare form of leukemia. As both of our children fought the disease, we quickly found out we were not alone. Walking into the oncology clinic in nearby Riley Hospital for Children, we would see children from our county on a weekly basis.
So many ill children from such a small county is not bad luck, or a coincidence: it’s an epidemic. We were determined to find out why.
We began “If It Was Your Child,” a grassroots campaign to find answers. We lobbied the government to identify the root causes of these pediatric cancers and called on state and local officials to employ Trevor's Law, which allows government agencies to conduct investigations into cancer clusters and their potential links to toxic chemicals present in the environment. Drinking water is contaminated by chemicals tied to cancer, including trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE). We are still fighting for the answers we need and deserve.
But our fight goes beyond our own community. We are fighting for those children who will develop pediatric cancers and those who will hopefully never face such a diagnosis. Nationally, rates of childhood leukemia and brain cancer are up 40 percent in the last four decades. Toxic chemicals like those in Johnson County’s drinking water may play a role in this increase.
That’s why we’re so disturbed that the Trump administration’s nominee to oversee the federal chemical safety program, Michael Dourson, has worked for the chemical industry to help advocate for weaker standards for its toxic chemicals. Time and time again, chemical companies have turned to Dourson when they needed a scientist to minimize the dangers of their toxic pollutants, including TCE, an industrial solvent known to cause cancer.
In 2010 — as the chemical was lurking in Johnson County’s drinking water — Dourson co-authored a paper, funded by a leading chemical industry trade group, recommending a standard for TCE up to 15 times less protective than the EPA’s standard. In a 2012 paper funded by the same industry group, he argued for a standard for PCE that was 12.5 times weaker than that proposed by impartial government scientists.
Every parent should be concerned about Michael Dourson. If confirmed, one of his first tasks will be to review TCE and PCE, as well as eight other chemicals, under the recently reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Dourson will have the power to allow these chemicals to go unregulated or under regulated, which could lead to more sick children.
We recently went to Washington to ask our senators, “What if it was your child?” How hard would you fight and what lengths would you go to protect not only your own, but all of our children? Refusing to approve the appointment of Dourson is part of that fight.
On behalf of the families Johnson County, we urge Sen. Joe Donnelly and Sen. Todd Young to reject Dourson’s nomination. One sick child should be enough to elicit a 'no' vote. So here’s two names to remember: Emma Rhinehart and Zane Davidson.
Stacie Davidson and Kari Rhinehart are residents of Johnson County and mothers of children who battled cancer. They co-founded “If It Was Your Child,” an organization dedicated to protecting children from environmental toxics and carcinogens.
https://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/2017/11/24/johnson-county-moms-trump-nominee-wrong-our-environment/885387001/
-
REACH Exposure Scenario Group Looks for Improvements
Nov 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Chynoweth
Stakeholders of the REACH Exchange Network on Exposure Scenarios (Enes) have been discussing a draft programme that will take its work through until 2020, at its eleventh meeting in Helsinki this week.
The network aims to improve the content and use of exposure scenarios generated under REACH. They are a key element of safe use communication through the supply chain through the extended safety data sheet.
Erwin Annys, REACH director at Cefic, told stakeholders – including representatives from Echa, up and downstream industry and member state authorities – the programme aims to tackle six issues:promotion of the Enes tools to various stakeholders;support for downstream sectors developing use maps;support for registrants in applying new use information in their chemical safety reports, and communicating safe use information through the supply chain. Proposed activities include adapting the software tool Chesar and building a common practical framework for various estimation tools relating to worker exposure;improving tools for formulators;further market research especially to help downstream users; andimproving the interface between REACH and occupational safety and health controls.
The programme will be finalised early next year, and presented to the Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal) in March.Updated sector use maps
Meanwhile, a raft of updated REACH sector specific use maps are expected to be published shortly on Echa's website. The agency's Laure-Anne Carton de Tournai, said that 13 sectors are currently active in the programme.
So far six groups have published the standardised information. This aims to provide realistic descriptions of chemical uses and, depending on their relevance, inputs for worker, consumer and environmental exposure, in their industries.
Another five sector groups – paints and coatings, plastics additives, petroleum products, solvents and fertilisers – will be published soon.
Ms Carton de Tournai also gave figures for how many files had been downloaded from the Echa use map library.
The detergents sector, represented by Aise, which had its documents published in October 2016, has had nearly 5,800 downloaded; and the adhesives and sealants industry (Feica) has had more than 3,500 documents downloaded since November 2016.Ambition
Echa is unclear on exact use of the documents. Originally the ambition was for the updated use maps to be implemented in 2018 dossiers. However, this has not occurred, and the hope now is they will be used to update dossiers after the deadline.
Speaking for the European Solvents Industry Group (Esig), Cornelia Tietz said assessment of generic exposure scenarios developed for solvent uses for the 2010 REACH deadline showed good alignment with the new batch of use maps and specific worker exposure determinants.
Dook Noij of Dow outlined a pilot project trying to quantify the benefits of the harmonised communication package ESCom XML, and standard ESCom phrases. The project indicated that manual exposure scenario data input takes between 2-4 hours, compared to five minutes to quality check electronic submissions – if all phrases exist in ESCom. If there are phrases missing, the estimated time is up to an hour.
Mr Noij noted that the initial effort needed to implement ESCom XML can be significant, but he said the benefits included improved use of resources and expertise, and faster processing.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62013/reach-exposure-scenario-group-looks-for-improvements
-
Foot-Dragging over Pesticide Adds to EU's Reputation as Unwieldy
Nov 23, 2017 | Financial Times
By Rochelle Toplensky
Sometimes in EU affairs the way a decision is taken, or not, sheds more light on the way the bloc operates than the decision itself. Take the case of glyphosate, the world’s most widely-used weedkiller.
The EU licence for the pesticide runs out on 15 December, so European experts — representing each national government on Brussels’ standing committee on plants, animals, food and feed, or PAFF — have to decide whether the bloc’s farmers can continue to use the product. It should have been routine. Yet the process has been a two-year saga and it has been difficult to tell whether politicians are more concerned about the potential toxic effects of the product — or of the judgment they must reach.
European farmers are heavily reliant on the herbicide and want it approved for another 15 years. Renewal seemed straightforward after the European Food Safety Authority, an EU agency, concluded in 2015 that glyphosate is not unsafe — in line with the findings of other national agencies. However, that certainty was called into question the same year when the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”.
That finding prompted a further review by both EFSA and the European Chemicals Agency, another EU body, which reassessed evidence in light of the IARC’s finding. They again found no link to cancer. This has not satisfied campaigners, who are deeply suspicious of the chemical’s potential effect on health, the environment and biodiversity. They also worry that politicians and regulators might be influenced by the power of the agrichemical industry: Monsanto, the US group that discovered and patented glyphosate, earned most of its $3.7bn pesticides revenue last year from its glyphosate-based Roundup products.The so-called Monsanto papers — internal company documents made public as part of US court cases — fed campaigners’ suspicions about the company’s influence on scientists and regulators. Meanwhile the industry has questioned the IARC’s methods and conclusions. All the regulatory agencies, and Monsanto, deny allegations of interference.
That public trust in scientific testing has waned is not surprising, given past scandals where supposedly safe products turned out to be harmful. Routine reassessments of product safety have become pressure points for interest groups to rally public opinion: more than 1m Europeans have signed a petition to ban glyphosate, reform approval procedures and cut pesticide use.
Farmers are worried. They say a glyphosate ban would raise costs, cut production and increase the need to till the soil, with deleterious environmental consequences.
European governments have been caught between public calls for a ban and vocal industry pressure to relicense. Paris has sought to balance its powerful farming lobby with strong public support for a ban. Berlin also faces a dilemma. Public opinion is hostile: around half of those petition signatures came from Germany. However one of Germany’s largest companies, Bayer, is buying Monsanto.
Since the summer PAFF’s experts have met every few weeks. Reapproval of glyphosate would need a vote by a qualified majority that represented most of the EU’s members and population — yet the committee has failed to agree a decision, even after a proposal to cut the licence period from 10 to five years. Perhaps most absurdly, the gridlock has occurred even though member states would be free to ban glyphosate domestically even if the bloc were to grant a new European license.
Please use the sharing tools found via the email icon at the top of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
https://www.ft.com/content/25847d72-d057-11e7-b781-794ce08b24dc
If, as expected, Monday’s last-chance vote also fails to reach a decision, the commission, which wants to change the rules to avoid future stand-offs, will be forced to decide on the renewal — with uncertain consequences. What does seem clear is that while such an outcome would provide a handy scapegoat for unhappy national politicians, it is unlikely to do much to reinforce public trust in the EU and national institutions.https://www.ft.com/content/25847d72-d057-11e7-b781-794ce08b24dc
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Add recipients
Suggested