|
||||||
Current query:Article Text contains Michaels
|
While all links worked when entries were posted to the database, different publishers
have different policies about retaining articles and providing access to archived material.
Thus some of the links, particularly older ones, may no longer be functional.
For links no longer working, you may be able to gain paid access to text via the publisher's site.
Whose side are health advocacy groups on?
Some of the most influential and vocal health experts belong to advocacy organizations such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the American Council on Science and Health. Who are they, and what do they stand for? Los Angeles Times, California. 4 July 2009.
House panel wants new review of BPA safety.
A congressional committee is investigating whether the FDA gave undue influence to chemical makers after several recent reports in the Journal Sentinel revealed how government regulators relied heavily on industry lobbyists when considering the safety of bisphenol A. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Wisconsin. 3 June 2009.
Some moms ditch plastic cups.
Conflicting reports over the safety of the plastic additive bisphenol A have forced parents to decide for themselves whether to keep using plastic baby bottles and cups made with the widely used compound. Raleigh News & Observer, North Carolina. 16 November 2008.
Plastics industry behind FDA research on bisphenol A, study finds.
A government report claiming that bisphenol A is safe was written largely by the plastics industry and others with a financial stake in the controversial chemical, the Journal Sentinel found. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Wisconsin. 23 October 2008.
Studies on chemical in plastics questioned.
Despite more than 100 published studies by government scientists and university laboratories that have raised health concerns about a chemical compound that is central to the multibillion-dollar plastics industry, the FDA has deemed it safe largely because of two studies, both funded by an industry trade group. Washington Post. 27 April 2008.
Feds nip state efforts to slash mercury.
While arguing in court that states are free to enact tougher mercury controls from power plants, the Bush administration pressured dozens of states to accept a scheme that would let some plants evade cleaning up their pollution, government documents show. Associated Press. 17 February 2008.
Plastic ingested, study finds.
Scientists furious at conclusions reached by a federal panel charged with assessing the safety of a common household chemical, bisphenol A, have retaliated. And they're using science as their weapon. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Wisconsin. 23 January 2008.
Agency to scrutinize oft-criticized findings that chemical poses little risk.
A controversial report on chemicals found in baby bottles and hundreds of other household products is under intense review by the National Toxicology Program after the agency was swamped with complaints that the authors were unduly influenced by the chemical industry. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Wisconsin. 10 January 2008.
A lethal cover up: Britain's worst water poisoning scandal.
After two decades of stone-walling by the authorities, alarming facts about the Camelford water incident are beginning to emerge, and this week a coroner opened inquests into a possible cover-up. London Daily Mail, United Kingdom. 15 December 2007.
Warning: Known to cause severe health risks to laboratory animals, bisphenol A is in you.
Investigative reporting finds that the federal government's assurances that bisphenol A is a safe chemical are based on outdated and incomplete government studies and science mostly funded by the chemical industry. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Wisconsin. 2 December 2007.
Amid suits over mold, experts wear two hats.
A scientific position paper has become a key defense tool wielded by builders and landlords in litigation over mold-related illness. One point that rarely emerges: The paper was written by paid experts for the defense. Wall Street Journal. 9 January 2007.
Science takes hard look inward.
Journal editors, considered the gatekeepers of scientific information, are grappling with how they can better uncover liars. USA Today. 11 January 2006.
'Loony' jibe at US policy over climate.
Britain's most senior scientist warned that Christian and Islamic fundamentalists now threaten to create a blighted, blinkered world worthy of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. London Observer, United Kingdom. 27 November 2005.
Mercury and Tuna: U.S. Advice Leaves Lots of Questions.
The FDA had known for many years that canned tuna contained mercury, which studies link to learning impairment in children. It wasn't until March 2004, after regulator tussles, that an advisory cited mercury. But those limits may exceed safe levels too. Wall Street Journal. 1 August 2005.
Key study on safety of chemical disputed.
Five years ago, an industry-funded study concluded that small amounts of perchlorate had no effect on adults. That study became the linchpin of national policy. It is now under fire. Riverside Press-Enterprise, California. 3 June 2005.
A Drug Maker's Ads, Hold the Disclaimer.
The troubled drug maker Merck is introducing this week what it describes as the first campaign in its 114-year history to help burnish the reputation of its corporate brand rather than sell its products. New York Times. 2 June 2005.
Is tobacco research turning over a new leaf?
Advocates say the tobacco industry is now serious about improving the safety of its products. But critics, who cite the industry's efforts to manipulate science over the past 50 years, see nothing but the same old smoke and mirrors. Science. 7 January 2005.
|
|||||
![[delete]](/images/x.gif)