{"id":530164,"date":"2010-04-16T10:24:27","date_gmt":"2010-04-16T14:24:27","guid":{"rendered":"tag:www.southernstudies.org,2010:\/\/5.12227"},"modified":"2010-04-16T10:43:46","modified_gmt":"2010-04-16T14:43:46","slug":"how-sen-vitter-battled-the-epa-over-formaldehydes-link-to-cancer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/530164","title":{"rendered":"How Sen. Vitter battled the EPA over formaldehyde’s link to cancer"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"david_vitter.jpg\"<\/a><\/span>By Joaquin Sapien, ProPublica<\/a><\/i><\/p>\n

When Sen. David Vitter persuaded the EPA to agree to yet another
\nreview of its long-delayed assessment of the health risks of
\nformaldehyde, he was praised by companies that use or manufacture a
\nchemical found in everything from plywood to carpet.<\/p>\n

As long as
\nthe studies continue, the EPA will still list formaldehyde as a
\n“probable” rather than a “known” carcinogen, even though three major
\nscientific reviews now link it to leukemia and have strengthened its
\nties to other forms of cancer. The chemical industry is fighting to
\navoid that designation, because it could lead to tighter regulations and
\n require costly pollution controls.<\/p>\n

“Delay means money. The
\nlonger they can delay labeling something a known carcinogen, the more
\nmoney they can make,” said James Huff, associate director for chemical
\ncarcinogenesis at the National Institute for Environmental Health in the
\n Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.<\/p>\n

The EPA’s chemical risk assessments are crucial to protecting the
\npublic’s health because they are the government’s most comprehensive
\nanalysis of the dangers the chemicals present and are used as the
\nscientific foundation for state and federal regulations. But it usually
\ntakes years or even decades to get an assessment done, or to revise one
\nthat is outdated. Often the industry spends millions on lobbying and on
\nscientific studies that counter the government’s conclusions.<\/p>\n

The
\n EPA has been trying since 1998 to update the formaldehyde assessment<\/a><\/span>, which was first written in 1989. But the
\n agency’s efforts have repeatedly been stalled by the industry and
\nCongress.<\/p>\n

This time, the resistance came from Vitter, a
\nRepublican senator from Louisiana, where, ironically, thousands of
\nHurricane Katrina victims say they suffered respiratory problems after
\nbeing housed in government trailers contaminated with formaldehyde. Last
\n year Vitter blocked the nomination of a key EPA official until the
\nagency agreed to ask the National Academy of Sciences to weigh in on the
\n assessment. Vitter’s spokesman, Joel DiGrado, told the media that
\n“because of the FEMA trailer debacle, we need to get absolutely reliable
\n information to the public about formaldehyde risk as soon as possible.”<\/p>\n

Vitter’s ties to the formaldehyde industry are well known. According
\n to Talking
\n Points Memo<\/a><\/span>, his election
\ncampaign received about $20,500 last year from companies that produce
\nlarge amounts of formaldehyde waste in Louisiana. But ProPublica found
\nthat Vitter actually took in nearly twice that amount if contributions
\nfrom other companies, trade groups and lobbyists with interests in
\nformaldehyde regulation are included. Among those contributors is
\nCharles Grizzle, a top-paid
\n lobbyist<\/a><\/span> for the Formaldehyde
\nCouncil, an industry trade group that had long
\n sought<\/a><\/span> a National Academy review
\n of the chemical.<\/p>\n

Congress stalled the formaldehyde risk
\nassessment once before. In 2004, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., persuaded<\/a><\/span> (PDF) the EPA to delay it, even though
\npreliminary findings from a National Cancer Institute study had already
\nlinked formaldehyde to leukemia. Inhofe insisted that the EPA wait for a
\n more “robust set of findings” from the institute.<\/p>\n

Koch
\nIndustries, a large chemical manufacturer and one of Inhofe’s biggest
\ncampaign contributors<\/a><\/span>, gave<\/a><\/span> Inhofe $6,000 that year. That
\nsame year Koch bought two
\npulp mills<\/a><\/span> from Georgia-Pacific, a
\n major formaldehyde producer and one of the world’s largest plywood
\nmanufacturers. The next year Koch bought all of Georgia-Pacific.<\/p>\n

The “more robust” findings that Inhofe asked for weren’t released until
\n five years later — in May 2009 — and they reinforced<\/a><\/span> the 2004 findings. Of the nearly 25,000
\nworkers the National Cancer Institute had tracked for 30 years, those
\nexposed to higher amounts of formaldehyde had a 37
\npercent greater risk of death<\/a><\/span>
\nfrom blood and lymphatic cancers and a 78 percent greater risk of
\nleukemia than those exposed to lower amounts. <\/p>\n

The Formaldehyde
\nCouncil immediately released a statement<\/a><\/span> disputing those findings and calling for
\n a full review by the National Academy of Sciences. Such an evaluation
\ncould take as long as four years, according to an EPA spokesperson.<\/p>\n

But
\n this time it wasn’t Inhofe who stepped in on the industry’s behalf, but
\n Vitter, who like Inhofe sits on the Environment and Public Works
\nCommittee.<\/p>\n

On the day the study came out, Grizzle, the
\nFormaldehyde Council lobbyist, donated
\n $2,400<\/a><\/span> to Vitter’s re-election
\ncampaign, the maximum<\/a><\/span> an individual can give to a federal
\ncandidate in a single election cycle. Grizzle didn’t respond to phone
\ncalls and e-mails asking for comment for this story.<\/p>\n

Grizzle
\nstarted his own lobbying firm in 1993, after serving as an EPA assistant
\n administrator in the late 1980s. He joined George W. Bush’s transition
\n team<\/a><\/span> in 2001, and raised
\n more than<\/a><\/span> $500,000 for Bush’s
\n2004 campaign, earning the title of fundraising “pioneer.” A
\nPhiladelphia Inquirer investigation<\/a><\/span> found that Grizzle used his friendship
\nwith Bush aide Karl Rove to help get Stephen Johnson the job as
\nassistant administrator for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
\nToxic Substances at EPA. When Johnson went on to lead the EPA, he
\nchanged the risk assessment system so other federal agencies could
\ncomment more frequently and forcefully on the EPA’s science, a move that
\n prolonged the process. In the waning days of the Bush administration,
\nJohnson asked the National Academy of Sciences to do a full review of
\nthe formaldehyde assessment.<\/p>\n

DiGrado, Vitter’s spokesman, didn’t
\nrespond to questions about Vitter’s ties to the industry. Instead, he 
\nsent ProPublica copies of two letters. One
\n showed that three Democratic lawmakers<\/a><\/span>
\n also wanted the review. The other letter was written by an EPA official
\n in the final week of the Bush administration, saying that the agency
\nwould “seek input” from the academy.<\/p>\n

Several public health
\nexperts interviewed by ProPublica think the industry’s goal is to delay
\nthe assessment as long as possible and to undermine the credibility of
\nthe EPA’s chemical risk assessment program.<\/p>\n

“This gives the
\nappearance of another congressman being more interested in industry than
\n the health of the public,” said Dr. Peter Infante, a former director of
\n the Office of Carcinogen Identification and Classification at the
\nOccupational Safety and Health Administration. “The public should not
\nthink that because a government document is undergoing NAS review, that
\nthat review is going to be competent.”<\/p>\n

Other public health
\nexperts point to the National Academy’s recent review<\/a><\/span> of the EPA’s assessment of
\nperchloroethylene, or PCE, as an example of how additional studies can
\ndrag out the assessment process.<\/p>\n

PCE is used in dry cleaning and
\nis found in high concentrations at military bases. Like formaldehyde, it
\n has been linked to leukemia, and the EPA has been trying to update the
\nchemical’s assessment since 1998. In 2008 the agency submitted its
\nfindings to the National Academy, and in February the academy sent the
\nassessment back to the EPA with a long list of questions. Although the
\nacademy agreed with the EPA’s conclusion that PCE was a “likely”
\ncarcinogen, it suggested that the safety standards should be
\nsignificantly weaker than those the EPA had proposed. The EPA is now
\nresponding to the academy’s comments.<\/p>\n

Democrats<\/a><\/span> in Congress and public health watchdogs
\nhave criticized the academy in the past for being slanted toward
\nindustry, because some of the scientists who serve on its review panels
\nhave written studies paid for by chemical companies whose products they
\nare evaluating. An academy spokeswoman said it thoroughly vets its
\npanelists and has strict financial conflict of interest rules.<\/p>\n

The
\n Road to Review <\/strong><\/p>\n

Vitter began his push for a National
\nAcademy review of formaldehyde in a June
\n 29 letter<\/a><\/span> to the EPA. It
\nincluded a list of questions about the formaldehyde assessment and urged
\n the EPA
\n to ask the National Academy<\/a><\/span> to
\nweigh in on it, according to documents ProPublica obtained through a
\nFreedom of Information Act request.<\/p>\n

The EPA responded on July 8,
\ndefending its plan to have the assessment reviewed by its own external
\npeer review panel, the Scientific Advisory Board. The letter noted that
\nthe advisory board could do the review in 12 to 16 months for about
\n$200,000, while the average National Academy review takes 18 to 24
\nmonths and costs $800,000 to $1 million.<\/p>\n

In September, two more
\nmajor scientific reviews raised concerns about the dangers of
\nformaldehyde. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, a
\ndivision of the World Health Organization, concluded it had enough
\n evidence<\/a><\/span> (PDF) to show that
\nformaldehyde exposure can cause leukemia. And the National Toxicology
\nProgram changed its categorization
\n of formaldehyde<\/a><\/span> from
\n“reasonably anticipated to be a carcinogen” to “known carcinogen.”<\/p>\n

But
\n Vitter continued pressuring the EPA for more review.<\/p>\n

On Sept.
\n23, he confirmed to reporters that he had placed a hold on the
\nnomination of Paul Anastas, the Obama administration’s choice to head
\nthe EPA’s Office of Research and Development. He said he wouldn’t
\nrelease the hold until the EPA agreed to send the formaldehyde
\nassessment to the National Academy. To smooth the way for that review,
\nhe tried to add an amendment<\/a><\/span> (PDF) to an EPA appropriations bill
\nmandating that the agency set aside $1 million for a National Academy
\nreview. Grizzle, the Formaldehyde Council lobbyist, worked to get
\nsupport for the amendment, according to one of his lobbying disclosure forms<\/a><\/span> (PDF). (The amendment wasn’t included in
\n the final bill.)<\/p>\n

On Sept. 24 EPA chief Lisa Jackson met with
\nVitter and offered a compromise: She would ask the National Academy for
\nits advice on the formaldehyde assessment.<\/p>\n

That same day, an EPA
\nspokeswoman told the New Orleans Times-Picayune that the chemical didn’t
\n need more review<\/a><\/span>, and that the
\nEPA was ready to begin finalizing its assessment.<\/p>\n

“This is not
\nthe time for more delay,” said EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy.<\/p>\n

But Vitter didn’t budge. <\/p>\n

In November, a political action
\ncommittee created by the American Chemistry Council, whose members
\ninclude formaldehyde producers Hexion Specialty Chemicals and DuPont, gave
\n Vitter<\/a><\/span> a $2,500 campaign
\ncontribution, in addition to the $1,500 it had given him earlier in the
\nyear. On Dec. 2, Koch Industries gave Vitter’s political action
\ncommittee a check<\/a><\/span> for $5,000. On Dec. 7, Grizzle gave
\n Vitter<\/a><\/span> (PDF) $200. On Dec. 17,
\nthe Society of the Plastics Industry, which represents formaldehyde
\nmanufacturers BASF and DuPont, hosted a fundraiser<\/a><\/span> for Vitter at its headquarters,
\nrecommending donations of $1,000 per person.<\/p>\n

On Dec. 23, Vitter
\ngot what he wanted. Jackson agreed to send the study to the National
\nAcademy. But
\n in a letter Jackson sent to the Formaldehyde Council<\/a><\/span> that day, she indicated it would not be
\nthe exhaustive study the industry had pushed for but would instead be
\ndone under a “compressed timeframe.” Dr. Peter Preuss, who heads the
\nEPA’s chemical risk assessment program, said it will likely be completed
\n in a year.<\/p>\n

Vitter removed his hold on Anastas’ nomination on
\nChristmas Eve, and the Formaldehyde Council released
\n a statement<\/a><\/span> praising his work.<\/p>\n

“Overcoming the agency’s intransigence in engaging NAS on
\nformaldehyde would have been impossible without the timely intervention
\nof U.S. Senator David Vitter,” Betsy Natz, the council’s executive
\ndirector, said in the news release. The statement said Jackson had
\ncontacted the council directly to notify it of the news.<\/p>\n

Last
\nmonth the National Academy began gathering public comments about the 13
\nscientists it has selected for the formaldehyde panel. The Natural
\nResources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group, has already
\nwritten a letter<\/a><\/span> raising questions about two of the
\ncandidates. One worked for the Hamner Institute, an industry-supported
\nlaboratory that lists the Formaldehyde Council as one of its sponsors.
\nThe other worked for more than a decade at Dow Chemical, which is a
\nmember of the Formaldehyde Council and has contributed to Vitter’s
\ncampaigns.<\/p>\n

On March 24, Grizzle, the Formaldehyde Council
\nlobbyist, co-hosted a fundraiser<\/a><\/span> for Vitter at the Capitol Hill Club, an
\nexclusive Republican gathering place. The suggested donation was $1,000
\nper person.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Joaquin Sapien, ProPublica When Sen. David Vitter persuaded the EPA to agree to yet another review of its long-delayed assessment of the health risks of formaldehyde, he was praised by companies that use or manufacture a chemical found in everything from plywood to carpet. As long as the studies continue, the EPA will still […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5733,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-530164","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/530164","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5733"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=530164"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/530164\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=530164"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=530164"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=530164"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}