|
||||||
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.
Bate and Switch: How a free-market magician manipulated two decades of environmental science.
Call major environmental groups and ask them about Roger Bate. The reply is always: Who? Few know he's the man who spread the myth that environmentalists, by fighting to ban DDT, have heartlessly caused millions of malaria deaths worldwide. Natural Resources News Service. 1 June 2009.
The real story behind bisphenol A.
How a handful of consultants used Big Tobacco's tactics to sow doubt about science and hold off regulation of BPA, a chemical in hundreds of products that could be harming an entire generation. Fast Company. 18 January 2009.
EPA perchlorate decision flawed, say advisers.
The U.S. EPA’s preliminary decision not to regulate perchlorate in drinking water has elicited an outpouring of criticism, including a plea from the agency’s Science Advisory Board for more scientific transparency and a stinging critique from the agency’s Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee. Environmental Science & Technology. 4 December 2008.
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.
It's not the answers that are biased, it's the questions.
One of the eyebrow-raising statistics about the bisphenol A studies is the stark divergence in results, depending on who funded them. This striking difference in studies isn't unique to BPA. Washington Post. Opinion, 15 July 2008.
The attack on science.
There’s a whole industry that’s working to make you, and Congress, uncertain about what science is finding about human health risks. Environment Report, Michigan. 19 May 2008.
Livestock lobby meddled in study, authors contend.
Livestock interests tried to disrupt a wide-ranging study of their industry by threatening to yank financing for universities and scientists who assisted, a Pew Commission report released Tuesday alleges. Des Moines Register, Iowa. 30 April 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.
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.
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.
Chemical agency ties under review.
The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences has begun a review of ties between a federal health center that evaluates the risks of chemicals to reproductive health and a consulting firm funded by companies that produce chemicals linked to reproductive disorders. Los Angeles Times, California. 7 March 2007.
Public health agency linked to chemical industry.
A federal agency responsible for assessing the dangers that chemicals pose to reproductive health has contracted much of its work to a company with close ties to the chemical industry, including manufacturers of a plastic compound linked to reproductive damage. Los Angeles Times, California. 4 March 2007.
Traditional covert influence of industry on occupational and environmental health policies has turned brazenly overt in the last several years.
More than ever before the OEH community is witnessing the perverse influence and increasing control by industry interests. Government has failed to support independent, public health-oriented practitioners and their organizations, instead joining many corporate endeavors to discourage efforts to protect the health of workers and the community. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health [PDF]. 2 March 2007. More...
An analysis of public records and court documents reveals an industry campaign to undermine steps taken by the US occupational health agency to develop safety standards for exposure to hexavalent chromium.
By splitting a study into two parts and publishing them separately, industry scientists made a significant elevation in risk of lung cancer go away. This study was never submitted by industry in its entirety to OSHA, but only became available when it was discovered in bankruptcy legal filings. 24 February 2006. More...
The Weinberg proposal.
A scientific consulting firm says that it aids companies in trouble, but critics say that it manufactures uncertainty and undermines science. From its roots defending the tobacco industry, it now defends Teflon, bisphenol A and phthalates. Environmental Science & Technology. 22 February 2006.
Inside Pentagon's fight to limit regulation of military pollutant.
A high-stakes battle over how much perchlorate is too much takes unusual twists as the Pentagon criticizes its own study when data support stronger standards, and the EPA --under White House pressure--eschews peer review to adopt a weaker standard. Wall Street Journal. 29 December 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.
|
|||||
![[delete]](/images/x.gif)