Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Credo Mobile

HOME

ABOUT US

OUR ISSUES

Federal Budget

Information & Access

Nonprofit Advocacy


PRESS ROOM

ACTION CENTER

PUBLICATIONS

THE WATCHER

OUR BLOGS


SIGN UP

Receive news, updates, and alerts!

DONATE

Help support our work


OTHER SITES

FedSpending.org

RTK NET

NPAction

Working Group on Community Right-to-Know

Citizens for Sensible Safeguards

Open the Government

OMB Watch Logo

"[P]eople acting in a group can accomplish things which no individual acting alone could even hope to bring about." - FDR

Home :  Regulatory Policy :  RegWatch : 
RegWatch:     

News & Analysis | REG•WATCH Blog | Press Room

 R    E    G    •    W    A    T    C    H 


Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Making sure that nothing sticks: EPA and DuPont

EPA is rigging the game for a Bush administration industry ally, this time DuPont. The Environmental Working Group has analyzed EPA's draft risk assessment on perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a key ingredient of Teflon, and found that EPA has rigged the risk assessment in order to make its own brand of regulatory Teflon. The essence of the charge is that EPA "ignored its own science panel's guidance and internal industry research":

In March 2004, the EPA's Scientific Advisory Panel instructed the EPA that, when assessing the family of chemicals that include [PFOA], the agency had to consider that several types of cancers, including testicular and pancreatic cancers, are relevant to humans.

The Agency ignored the panel's instruction in [the resulting] risk assessment . . . .

Although EPA's own internal guidelines require that a chemical be considered carcinogenic when it meets any one of five criteria, it dodged the question with the Teflon ingredient -- which meets three out of the five criteria, according to EWG, which also noted that EPA ignored evidence "showing that people with high levels of this Teflon chemical in their blood had higher cholesterol rates — a widely known risk factor for heart attack and stroke."

Ken Cook, president of Environmental Working Group (EWG), said, "There's a big difference between sound science and tilted science, and at every turn in this important process, EPA officials favored DuPont."

Posted by Robert Shull



Entries by Theme

All Themes

Enforcement

About This Blog

Rollbacks

Safety

Industry Influence

Cost-Benefit Analysis

In Congress

Publications

Consumer Issues

Environment

Public Health

In the Courts

Oversight

In the White House

Most Recent Entries for RegWatch

Controversial Rule on Abortion Moving Forward

Bush Administration Backs Off SCHIP Restrictions

Bush Signs Consumer Product Safety Bill

Bush Administration Cuts Habitat for Spotted Owl

Bush Trying Last-Minute Changes to Endangered Species Act

For EPA Staff Trying to Protect the Planet, "Disappointment is Profound"

Consumer Product Bill Delivers Win for Consumers

Will New FDA Guidelines Really Reduce Conflicts of Interest?

Crane Rule Held Back by Bush Administration Ideology

Senate Passes Product Safety Bill

Archived Entries for Environment

August

July

June

May

April

March

February

January

December, 2007

November, 2007

October, 2007

September, 2007

August, 2007

July, 2007

June, 2007

May, 2007

April, 2007

March, 2007

February, 2007

January, 2007

December, 2006

November, 2006

October, 2006

September, 2006

August, 2006

June, 2006

May, 2006

April, 2006

March, 2006

February, 2006

January, 2006

December, 2005

November, 2005

October, 2005

September, 2005

August, 2005

July, 2005

June, 2005

May, 2005

April, 2005

March, 2005

February, 2005

January, 2005

December, 2004

November, 2004

October, 2004

September, 2004