|
News & Analysis | REG•WATCH Blog | Press Room
Friday, February 29, 2008
EPA's Topsy-Turvy Definition of Conflict-of-Interest
Here's a gem from today's Los Angeles Times:
Under pressure from the chemical industry, the Environmental Protection Agency has dismissed an outspoken scientist who chaired a federal panel responsible for helping the agency determine the dangers of a flame retardant widely used in electronic equipment.
Toxicologist Deborah Rice was appointed chair of an EPA scientific panel reviewing the chemical a year ago. Federal records show she was removed from the panel in August after the American Chemistry Council, the lobbying group for chemical manufacturers, complained to a top-ranking EPA official that she was biased.
Rice has outspokenly advocated for a ban on the flame retardant, deca, because she believes existing science proves the substance is harmful even at low levels. According to the LA Times, Rice is "an award-winning former EPA scientist who now works at the Maine Department of Health and Human Services."
So what is EPA's justification for her dismissal? "EPA officials removed Rice because of what they called 'the perception of a potential conflict of interest.' " What is the conflict here? The fact that she is a human?
Not only did EPA remove Rice from the panel, they also deleted her portions of an upcoming report regarding the chemical's safety. That could have major regulatory implications, as Andrew Schneider of The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports:
EWG and two scientists in EPA with whom I spoke this morning, said the omission of Rice's comments from the review document could result in a significantly weaker safety standard for the chemical, which EPA intends to propose at the end of March 2008.
A proposed rule published in March gives EPA just enough time to gather comments and finalize the rule before the clock runs out on the Bush administration.
Posted by Matt Madia
|