Congress questions FDA objectivity on BPA plastic safety ... USA TODAY Oct 24, 2008

[Guest guest]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-10-24-bpa-congress-fda_N.htm A rubber duck sits on

the desk of Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., during a June Capitol Hill hearing of

the House Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection subcommittee on the safety of

phthalates and BPA in consumer products. Congress questions

FDA objectivity on BPA plastic safety By Liz Szabo,

USA TODAY Oct 24, 2008 Congress is stepping in to ask questions

about chemical industry influence in drafting a Food and Drug Administration

report about the safety of a controversial chemical in baby bottles. In August, the FDA declared the

chemical, bisphenol A, or BPA, safe, a determination greeted skeptically by

consumer groups who argue that hundreds of scientific studies suggest it may

cause serious harm. According to a letter to the FDA

from Reps. Dingell and Bart Stupak sent last week, the FDA hired a private

consulting group with strong industry ties to perform some of its analyses of

BPA. Work performed by Virginia-based ICF International "formed the basis

for the draft," says Jodi Seth, a spokeswoman for the House of

Representatives' Committee on Energy and Commerce, which Dingell chairs. Sen. Grassley, R-Iowa, also

wants to know exactly who wrote the FDA report. In a letter to the FDA last month,

Grassley pointed out that the report appears to be anonymous. He has written to

FDA Commissioner von Eschenbach to supply him with the names of everyone

who worked on it. Both Democrats and Republicans have

questioned why the FDA used only industry-funded research when determining that

BPA is safe. And Dingell and Stupak, both Michigan

Democrats, note that the chairman of an FDA advisory panel on BPA heads a

research center that accepted a $5 million gift from a retired medical device

manufacturer who says the chemical is safe. That expert panel, a subcommittee

of the FDA's larger Science Board, has been asked to provide an outside review

of the BPA report. Given the potential for bias, the

FDA should require the panel chairman, Philbert of the

University of Michigan ,

to return the $5 million or withdraw from the panel, Rep. Markey,

D-Mass., wrote in a separate letter. In an interview, Philbert says his

research money has come entirely from federal grants and the W.M. Keck

Foundation. Philbert says he has given lengthy descriptions of all potential

conflicts to the FDA, and that the agency has reviewed these materials three

times. The FDA has not asked him to step down, however, and Philbert says he

plans to continue volunteering on the subcommittee. Philbert says he has never discussed

BPA with the donor, Gelman. When Gelman began to raise the subject

during one conversation, Philbert says he immediately changed the subject. "I have serious concerns about

this agency's ability to protect our children from a potentially dangerous

chemical," Stupak said in a statement. Grassley also has asked why the FDA

has ignored research funded by taxpayers through the National Institutes of

Health. He notes that the FDA appears to be using a different standard than the

National Toxicology Program — part of the Department of Health and Human

Services — which relied on government-funded research to conclude there

is "some concern" that BPA may affect development of the brain,

behavior and prostate in children exposed before and after birth. And Grassley notes that scientists are

finding additional evidence of BPA's dangers all the time. Just last month, he notes,

researchers writing in the Journal of the

American Medical Association linked BPA to heart disease and

diabetes in adults. Lindsey Litton, a spokeswoman for

ICF International, says its contract with the FDA doesn't allow her to discuss

the company's work. But she says that ICF works on hundreds of contracts a

year, both for business and government. "The conduct of all of these

projects is governed by strict conflict of interest and ethics policies to

ensure that our objectivity and integrity is maintained at all times," she

says.University of Michigan spokeswoman Cunningham says Philbert, who leads the the University of

Michigan Risk Science Center, has no conflict of interest. The donation was

made to the university, rather than to him, Cunningham says. Philbert's salary

doesn't come from the donation or from the center. A spokesman for the FDA declined to

comment, noting that the agency is preparing answers to lawmakers' questions.

The advisory panel is scheduled to release its review of the FDA's report on

BPA before it meets Oct. 31. The panel will present its findings to the FDA's

Science Board, which may issue its own assessment of the agency's work. A growing number of retailers,

manufacturers and government officials are taking action against BPA.

Canada last week declared BPA to be toxic and announced plans to ban it in baby

bottles. Markey has introduced legislation to ban BPA in food and beverage

packaging. Attorneys general from

Connecticut , New Jersey and Delaware have asked 11 companies to stop using BPA in baby bottles and formula cans. In

response to Dingell and Stupak's investigation, major baby formula

manufacturers have said they are working to take BPA out of the linings of

their liquid formula cans. Most baby bottle makers also now offer BPA-free

alternatives.