Was the fix in?

Suzanne Rust and Meg Kissinger report in Sunday's Journal Sentinel about a $5 million gift from Charles Gelman to the University of MIchigan's Risk Science Center. This is the latest piece in their hard-hitting investigative series into the politics and policy of how chemical safety standards are set, or more often, undermined.

Too little is known about what led up to the gift to reach any conclusions, but at the very least, what is known suggests some awkward questions for Dr. Martin Philbert, co-director of the Center and simultaneously the chair of a subcommittee on bisphenol A for the FDA.

Here's what the Journal Sentinel uncovered:

In July  (more or less... the FDA spokesperson interviewed by the newspaper wasn't certain), Martin Philbert was named chair of an FDA panel on the safety of BPA in food containment materials.  The committee issued its draft assessment in late August (finding BPA safe) and held a public hearing in mid-September. It will release its report by late October.

In July, Charles Gelman gave the Risk Science Center $5 million.  This is 50 times the size of the annual operating budget of the Center.  According to the Journal Sentinel, Gelman was "once labeled the second worst polluter in Michigan by the state's Department of Natural Resources."

"Gelman, a retired manufacturer of syringes and medical devices, has fought against government regulation of pollutants for years."

"He is an anti-regulation activist and an outspoken supporter of organizations including JunkScience.com, the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute that attack the credibility of government and academic scientists on such topics as global warming and hazardous chemicals."

Gelman told the Journal Sentinel that he had made clear to Philbert his views on bisphenol A in several conversations.  Philbert denied that to the reporters.

Philbert did not disclose the gift the the FDA, even though he filled out a conflict of interest form to participate in the BPA committee.  FDA officials learned of the gift from the Journal Sentinel.

This episode could be the result of coincidences and innocent errors in judgement. But this is not the first time that a federal panel reviewing BPA safety was found to be compromised by serious conflicts of interest.  In March 2007, investigations by the Environmental Working Group and the Los Angeles Times discovered that the National Institute of Health had outsourced the drafting of a key BPA document to a private firm that had hidden its commercial relationships with major BPA producers. Congress began to investigate and the private contractor was fired.

It may require another Congressional investigation to get to the bottom of this, unless Philbert and Gelman become much more transparent about the gift... Why was it made and what were the donor's expectations?  What negotiations led up to the gift?  Was the amount within Gelman's normal range?  Did other parties contribute? Did Gelman communicate with third parties about the gift?  If so, whom? And when?