Last week, the New York Times reported on the withdrawal of the nomination of Michael Dourson to head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) chemical safety office—which we applauded as a win for public health.
The Times article mentioned and provided a link to a 400-page trove of emails to and from Dourson that were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request filed in August by Greenpeace to the University of Cincinnati, where Dourson previously worked.
<p style="">The emails shine a rare spotlight on a network, of which Dourson and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) are a part, that operates largely out of public view. It involves a coordinated effort between the chemical industry and its private and academic consultants to generate science that invariably supports the safety of the industry's chemicals, and pushes back against any regulatory and academic science that indicates otherwise. The emails make for very interesting reading, if you can skip through the myriad emails about scheduling calls and meetings (which make up the bulk of any of our inboxes, I suspect).</p><p style="">To pique your interest, let me start with one email relating to Dourson's nomination. </p><p style="">His nomination was publicly announced by <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/scott-pruitt">Scott Pruitt</a> on July 17. But nearly two months earlier, in an email (<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/13/us/document-Dourson-University-of-Cincinnati-Emails.html?_r=0" target="_blank">see page 178</a>) dated May 23 and marked confidential, Dourson wrote to Kimberly White at ACC to let her know of his "appointment," and also alluding to the possibility (which came to pass) that he would be hired as an advisor before being confirmed:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">Based on the recommendation of EPA Administrator Pruitt, President Trump has appointed me as the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Safety Assessment and Pollution Prevention. EPA wants to get my senate confirmation scheduled before the August recess. They may also want to hire me into the Agency in July, which apparently they can do as soon as the announcement is made. The announcement is made after background checks are completed (40 days is typical). At this point, please keep news of this appointment under wraps.</p><p style="">Now, ACC is no doubt upset by the Dourson withdrawal, having hired Dourson repeatedly to help defend its companies' chemicals and never wavering in support of his nomination. So it should come as no surprise that ACC is also unhappy with the Times' release of the emails, especially given that a large fraction of them involve communications that include Dourson and ACC employees.</p><p style="">Last Thursday the ACC took to its blog to object to the Times article as "misleading." The only specific it takes issue with, however, is that the article "paints a dubious picture of emails between one of our employees and Dr. Michael Dourson."</p><p style="">ACC's specific beef is that the Times flagged emails showing that Dourson and his university colleagues had exchanged drafts of a paper they were working on with an ACC staffer. ACC pointed out that the staffer in that case was a co-author of the paper. Fair enough.</p><p style="">But ACC's nit conveniently ignores other emails. One chain shows direct communications between Dourson and ACC involving <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230017300429" target="_blank">another paper</a> he co-authored that was in the final stages of publication in <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/08/09/doursons-go-to-journal-for-publishing-his-industry-funded-papers-is-well-also-industry-funded/" target="_blank">Dourson's go-to journal</a>. Even though no one from ACC is a co-author on this paper, Dourson's emails indicate not only that ACC had the galley proofs of the paper, but that ACC staff seemed to be the keeper of them (<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/13/us/document-Dourson-University-of-Cincinnati-Emails.html?_r=0" target="_blank">see chain around page 213</a>).</p><p>ACC's blog post goes on to cite its policy that scientific conclusions and judgments drawn by outside parties ACC hires are not subject to its control. But that policy goes on to state that "the Council shall have the right to review such judgments and conclusions" for "clarification, and format and editorial comments." Seems like an elephant could slip through that opening.</p><p style="">Recall that ACC recently embraced EPA Administrator Pruitt's <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/10/31/to-be-true-to-your-new-directive-mr-pruitt-you-need-to-fire-michael-dourson-today/" target="_blank">new directive</a> that bars EPA-funded scientists from serving on any agency advisory panel. The outlandish premise behind the directive is that EPA and the extramural researchers it funds are somehow in cahoots to find problems the agency can then regulate. So it's worth noting that, unlike ACC's contracts, EPA grants have no allowance for EPA to pre-review or edit the papers of researchers it funds.</p><p style="">But back to the emails, when ACC says there's no there there in them, don't believe it.</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
The Center for Food Safety heralded reports that Michael Dourson, President Trump's controversial nominee to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Wednesday withdrew his nomination after senators raised concerns over his past work and conflicts of interest.
"Dourson is a long-time pesticide industry shill, with a history of manipulating scientific research to benefit corporate special interests. He was a dangerous, irresponsible choice to oversee chemical safety at the EPA," said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director a Center for Food Safety.
<p style="">"The Senate correctly raised important conflict of interest concerns based on the public's outcry. Make no mistake: This is your victory, food movement. The Trump Administration should now move forward to nominate someone who will put public and environmental health over the profits of chemical companies."</p><p style="">If confirmed, Dourson would have been in the position to set safety levels for many of the same chemicals his company was hired to defend. Multinational chemical companies like Dow, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/monsanto">Monsanto</a> and DuPont have routinely hired Dourson to downplay the effects of highly toxic substances linked to <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-lawsuits-roundup-cancer-2324693930.html">birth defects, developmental problems and cancer</a>. For years, Dourson has accepted payments for "criticizing studies that raised concerns about the safety of his clients' products," according to a review of financial records and his published work by The Associated Press. In fact, Dourson has spent much of his career helping companies fight restrictions on their toxic products. Dourson even went so far as to assert that children are less susceptible to toxic chemicals, despite the widespread, verified scientific consensus that children are more susceptible.</p><p style="">At his committee hearing, Dourson's questionable track record and refusal to commit to recusing himself from working on chemicals he's been paid by industry to "study" in the past led Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) to tell Dourson, "You're not just an outlier on this science, you're outrageous in how far from the mainstream of science you actually are. It's pretty clear you have never met a chemical you didn't like."</p><p style="">"Dourson's withdrawal is another victory for the American people, sound science and the rule of law," said Kimbrell. "The food movement needs to continue to speak loudly against this Administration's efforts to promote corporate profits over the protection of farmers, food safety, public health and the environment."</p><p style="">Dourson is the second controversial nominee to withdraw in as many months. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/sam-clovis-usda-2462483880.html">Sam Clovis</a>, a former Trump campaign aide, climate change "skeptic" and conservative radio talk show host, withdrew from consideration for Chief Scientist at USDA, after months of opposition and public outcry about his lack of qualification and biases. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/sam-clovis-russia-2504835418.html">Clovis was also linked</a> to the ongoing investigation into Russia's interference with the 2016 presidential election.</p>
Read More
Show Less
Irma Omerhodzic
By Jessica Corbett
The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on Wednesday advanced the nominations of four potential assistant administrators for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), raising concerns among conservationists and Democratic lawmakers who worry the candidates' connections to various industries will further endanger regulations that have been in under attack since Trump appointee Scott Pruitt took over as the agency's administrator.
The four EPA nominees whose fate could soon be decided by a full senate vote are:
<ul class="ee-ul"> <li><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/pruitt-epa-nominees-2487546138.html">William "Bill" Wehrum</a>, nominee to be assistant administrator for the Office of Air and Regulation at the Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">EPA</a>);</li></ul><ul class="ee-ul"> <li><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-chemical-safety-2484776932.html">Michael Dourson</a>, nominee to be assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention at the EPA;</li></ul><ul class="ee-ul"> <li>Matthew Leopold, nominee to be assistant administrator for the Office of General Counsel at the EPA; and</li></ul><ul class="ee-ul"><li>David Ross, nominee to be assistant administrator for the Office of Water at the EPA.</li></ul><p style="">While <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/endangered-species-act-2462536171.html">Sen. John Barrasso</a> (R-WY), the committee chairman, introduced the candidates as "well-qualified, experienced, and dedicated public servants," declaring "their confirmation will fill critically important roles in ensuring that all Americans benefit from clean air, clean water, and clean land," conservationists and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/pruitt-trump-confirmation-hearing-2200944084.html">Sen. Tom Carper</a> (D-Del.), the committee's ranking Democrat, expressed concerns about the nominees' ties to industry.</p><p style="">"All four of these nominees, especially Bill Wehrum and Michael Dourson, would accelerate Scott Pruitt's mission to dismantle the EPA from the inside," <a href="https://www.lcv.org/article/lcv-urges-senate-oppose-epa-nominees/" target="_blank">said</a> League of Conservation Voters vice president for government affairs Sara Chieffo. "Far from draining the swamp, these industry insiders are entirely unfit to serve and pose a grave threat to our communities and our health."</p><p>"All four have condemned the very existence of the EPA and want to weaken it beyond recognition, threatening the EPA's mission to protect our clean air and water," Chieffo added. "We call on the Senate to reject their nominations."</p><p>Although Leopold and Ross have been criticized, Wehrum and Dourson have garnered the most negative attention.</p><p style="">Carper <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-nominees/u-s-senate-panel-approves-controversial-epa-nominees-idUSKBN1CU2HS?il=0" target="_blank">told</a> Reuters Wehrum and Dourson's nominations were of "grave concern," and called Dourson "one of the most troubling nominees I have ever considered during my time on this committee." <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/clean-energy-bill-merkley-sanders-markey-2381516585.html">Sen. Ed Markey</a> (D-Mass.) <a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/10/25/epa-michael-dourson-senate-vote/" target="_blank">said</a> Dourson was "so far out of the scientific mainstream, it is outrageous."</p><p>"We've done the wrong thing," Carper <a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/10/25/epa-michael-dourson-senate-vote/" target="_blank">said</a> after the committee voted along party lines to approve both men. "I have never been this troubled on this committee, or any committee, in 17 years."</p><p style="">Wehrum, an attorney, was nominated for this same position in 2006, but his name was withdrawn over concerns about his industry connections. He "has represented several industry groups and corporations, including the American Petroleum Institute and Kinder Morgan, in fights against clean air and other health protections," <a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/10/25/epa-michael-dourson-senate-vote/" target="_blank">reported</a> The Intercept's <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/scientists-trump-2216772306.html">Sharon Lerner</a>.</p><p style="">During a committee hearing earlier this month, Wehrum <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/10/25/%E2%80%9CI%20believe%20that%E2%80%99s%20an%20open%20question,%E2%80%9D%20" target="_blank">reportedly</a> said "I believe that's an open question," when asked whether he believed "with high confidence that human activities [are] the main driver of climate change." If confirmed, Wehrum would oversee various regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.</p><p style="">Lerner <a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/10/25/epa-michael-dourson-senate-vote/" target="_blank">describes</a> Dourson, who would hold influence over the agency's chemical policy, as "a <a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/10/03/epa-nominee-michael-dourson-toxic-chemicals/" target="_blank">massively conflicted</a> scientist known within industry for his ability to come up with standards companies liked, create science to justify them, and then '<a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/07/21/trumps-epa-chemical-safety-nominee-was-in-the-business-of-blessing-pollution/" target="_blank">sell</a>' the package to the EPA." Critics of Dourson worry that his appointment will interfere with update to a major chemical safety law that was updated last year.</p><p style="">"If approved by the full Senate, Dourson will oversee the implementation of the updated law, the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-toxics-rule-2473211752.html">Toxic Substances Control Act</a>, though he has been paid by manufacturers and other interested parties to work on 20 of the chemicals that may come before him as part of its implementation," Lerner wrote. "When asked during his confirmation hearing whether he would recuse himself from making decisions about these chemicals earlier this month, Dourson <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/democrats-oppose-chemical-safety-nominee-d84c383c40ae/" target="_blank">refused</a>."</p><p style="">The Senate committee's ten Democrats sent a <a href="https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2017%2010%2024%20Letter%20to%20Dourson_Adviser_with%20QFRs.pdf" target="_blank">letter</a> to Dourson on Tuesday, pointing out that while his assistant administrator position is pending, he has been appointed to serve as an adviser to Pruitt, which they wrote, "creates the appearance, and perhaps the effect, of circumventing the Senate's constitutional advice and consent responsibility" regarding the position to which he has been nominated.</p><p style="">"It has been widely reported that Nancy Beck, previously of the American Chemistry Council, has been working behind the scenes to undermine the protections Congress intended" when <a href="https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-21st-century-act" target="_blank">updating the toxic substances law</a> last year, the senators noted, just days after the New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/us/trump-epa-chemicals-regulations.html?_r=0" target="_blank">published</a> a particularly damning piece about Beck's recent revisions to EPA rules.</p><p style=""><span></span>Similarly, they wrote to Dourson, "Your prior association with the the tobacco industry and your extensive work for the American Chemistry Council and other chemical manufacturers led The New York Times to deem you a 'scientist for hire' and accordingly raises similar concerns."</p><p style=""> <em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/10/25/sworn-enemies-epa-now-just-one-step-heading-key-agency-offices" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
Support Ecowatch
iStock
By Scott Faber
Next week, a key Senate committee will consider the nomination of Michael Dourson to oversee chemical safety at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Here are the top 10 reasons senators should reject his nomination.
<p style=""><strong>1. He's industry's favorite scientist for hire.</strong></p><p style="">For decades Dourson has been the go-to guy for <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/monsanto">Monsanto</a>, Dow, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/koch-brothers">Koch Industries</a> and other companies.</p><p style=""><strong>2. He's argued for weak safety standards. </strong></p><p style=""><strong></strong>Dourson has consistently <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/09/18/modus-operandi-how-epa-toxics-nominee-dourson-carries-out-his-work-for-the-chemical-industry/?_ga=2.155077944.1284073838.1506343114-417700442.1471444668" target="_blank">twisted the science</a> to argue for chemical safety standards far <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/09/22/proof-in-pudding-epa-toxics-nominee-dourson-has-consistently-recommended-safe-levels-for-chemicals-that-would-weaken-health-protections/?_ga=2.199681454.1284073838.1506343114-417700442.1471444668" target="_blank">weaker</a> than standards proposed by the EPA and other federal or state environmental health agencies.</p><p style=""><strong>3. He greenwashed DuPont's Teflon chemical. </strong></p><p style=""><strong></strong>Dourson argued for a standard for <a href="http://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2017/09/sticky-history-trump-chemical-safety-nominee-s-record-dupont-and-teflon#.Wb_bi9N95-U" target="_blank">PFOA</a>, the cancer-causing compound once used to make Teflon, that was more than 2,000 times weaker than the safety standard recommended by the EPA.</p><p style=""><strong>4. He greenwashed rocket fuel. </strong></p><p style="">Dourson also argued for a weaker safety standard for <a href="http://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2017/09/junk-rocket-science-how-trump-s-epa-nominee-greenwashed-brain-damaging-chemical#.Wb_bvNN95-U" target="_blank">perchlorate</a>. It is a jet fuel chemical that harms the development of babies' brains.</p><p style=""><strong>5. He greenwashed 1,4-dioxane. </strong></p><p style="">Dourson argued for a standard for <a href="http://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2017/09/ugly-truth-how-trump-s-epa-nominee-greenwashed-carcinogen-cosmetics#.WczxttN95-U" target="_blank">1,4-dioxane</a> that was 1,000 times weaker than the safety standard recommended by the EPA. The likely carcinogen is found in drinking water and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/personal-care-products">cosmetics</a>.</p><p style=""><strong>6. He greenwashed the "popcorn lung" chemical. </strong></p><p style="">Dourson argued for a safety standard for <a href="http://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2017/09/chemical-safety-nominee-weakened-standards-popcorn-lung-food-additive#.WczPANN95-U" target="_blank">diacetyl</a>, the food additive that gives microwave popcorn its buttery flavor and causes lung disease in workers, that was 40 times weaker than the safety standard recommended by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.</p><p style=""><strong>7. He defended a pesticide that harms kids' brains. </strong></p><p style=""><strong></strong>On behalf of Monsanto and Dow, Dourson argued in defense of <a href="http://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2017/09/how-trump-s-chemical-safety-nominee-greenwashed-toxic-pesticides-monsanto-dow#.WczPFdN95-U" target="_blank">chlorpyrifos</a>, a controversial crop chemical that lowers IQ. He also sought weaker standards for other <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pesticides">pesticides</a> linked to cancer.</p><p style=""><strong>8. The EPA will review many of the chemicals he's greenwashed. </strong></p><p style="">If confirmed, Dourson will oversee EPA reviews of chemicals he's <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/19/science/epa-chemical-industry-dourson.html?mcubz=0&_r=0" target="_blank">previously reviewed for industry interests</a>. This includes TCE, 1,4-dioxane, chlorpyrifos and 1-brompropane.</p><p style=""><strong>9. He downplayed the risks of second-hand smoke. </strong></p><p style="">Dourson <a href="http://www.bna.com/epa-chemical-office-n73014461928/" target="_blank">defended</a> his work for the tobacco industry by saying: "Jesus hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors."</p><p style=""><strong>10. He created a bogus chemical website for kids. </strong></p><p style=""><strong></strong>With funding from the American Chemistry Council, Dourson created a "Kids + Chemicalsafety" <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/09/14/shifting-the-burden-for-toxics-with-a-sneaky-website-one-more-reason-dourson-shouldnt-lead-epa-toxics-office/?_ga=2.155077944.1284073838.1506343114-417700442.1471444668" target="_blank">website</a> to downplay the risks chemicals pose to children. The site has since been taken down.</p>
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Trump's Pick for Top EPA Post Under Scrutiny for Deep Ties to Chemical Industry
20 September 2017
Popular
From Scott Pruitt to Betsy DeVos, President Donald Trump has notoriously appointed a slew of individuals with serious conflicts of interests with the departments they oversee.
The latest is Michael L. Dourson, Trump's pick to head the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, the government's chemical safety program. Media reports reveal that the toxicologist is under intense scrutiny for his extensive ties to the chemical industry and a resumé dotted with some of the biggest names in the field: Koch Industries Inc., Chevron Corp., Dow AgroSciences, DuPont and Monsanto.
<p>
After working as a staff toxicologist for the EPA from 1980 to 1994, Dourson founded and ran the
<a href="http://www.tera.org/" target="_blank">Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment</a> (TERA), a nonprofit research group that has been paid by chemical corporations to research and write reports that downplay the health risks posed by their products, the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/19/science/epa-chemical-industry-dourson.html?mcubz=0&_r=0" target="_blank">New York Times</a> reports. TERA has since been renamed as the Risk Science Center at the University of Cincinnati, where Dourson is a professor.
</p><p style="">
According to the <a href="https://apnews.com/877205e5d2c04b3eb40984ff02201c79/EPA-nominee-once-helped-chemical-industry,-lobbyists" target="_blank">Associated Press</a>, Dourson's research has been "underwritten by industry trade and lobbying groups representing the makers of plastics, pesticides, processed foods and cigarettes."
</p><p>
Dourson's Senate confirmation hearing was originally set for Wednesday but has been postponed to a date that has not yet been announced. If confirmed, Dourson would be in charge of regulating chemicals produced by "his old industry friends,"
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-chemical-safety-2484776932.html" target="_blank">critics have warned</a>. <span></span>
</p><p>
Notably, Dourson and TERA was contracted by Dow AgroSciences, the maker of chlorpyrifos, a neurotoxic pesticide that has been shown to <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/common-pesticide-disturbs-the-brains-of-children/" target="_blank">harm children's brains</a> at even very low exposure levels. Dourson and his researchers argued in three papers that there were flaws in peer-reviewed studies that linked delays in fetal development from chlorpyrifos exposure, the AP reports.</p><p>In March, the EPA controversially <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-03/documents/chlorpyrifos3b_order_denying_panna_and_nrdc27s_petitition_to_revoke_tolerances.pdf" target="_blank">refused to ban chlorpyrifos</a> claiming the science is "<a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-03/documents/chlorpyrifos3b_order_denying_panna_and_nrdc27s_petitition_to_revoke_tolerances.pdf" target="_blank">unresolved</a>" and decided it would postpone the determination of the pesticide until 2022.
</p><p>Dourson was also the lead author of a
<a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10962247.2016.1180328" target="_blank">report</a> funded by Koch Industries that concluded that human exposures to petroleum coke and coal "if any, are well below levels that could be anticipated to produce adverse health effects in the general population."<br></p><p>Senator Tom Carper (D-DE), the ranking minority member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works panel that will evaluate Dourson's qualifications was alarmed by Trump's choice. </p><p>"Dr. Dourson's consistent endorsement of chemical safety standards that not only match industry's views, but are also significantly less protective than E.P.A. and other regulators have recommended, raises serious doubts about his ability to lead those efforts," Carper told the Times. "This is the first time anyone with such clear and extensive ties to the chemical industry has been picked to regulate that industry."</p><p><span></span>A number of experts and environmental and consumer health groups have also spoken against Dourson. The <a href="https://www.edf.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Defense Fund</a> has <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/07/18/edf-has-deep-concerns-over-nomination-of-industry-consultant-to-lead-toxics-program-at-epa/" target="_blank">listed</a> a number of further objections, including:
</p><ul class="ee-ul">
<li>After the 2014 chemical spill in Charleston, West Virginia, the state hired Dourson's company, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA), to <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20141219/one-stop-science-shop-has-become-favorite-industry%E2%80%94and-texas" target="_blank">convene and manage a health effects expert panel</a>. TERA then appointed Dourson to chair the panel and act as its only spokesperson. The panel's report failed to disclose that Dourson and TERA had done paid work for both of the companies that produced the chemicals involved in the spill. These conflicts only came to light upon questioning of Dourson by a reporter at the panel's news conference.</li>
<li>Dourson and TERA have done extensive work on behalf of the so-called <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Perchlorate_Study_Group" target="_blank">Perchlorate Study Group</a> (PSG), which is actually comprised of producers and users of perchlorate. The work was aimed at reducing the stringency of federal standards. Dourson, who is on EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB), was asked to recuse himself from the Board's 2013 meeting to review EPA's work to develop a drinking water standard for perchlorate. Immediately upon doing so, <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/PeopleSearch/3BB19C9B7E8C322385257AED006A01CC/%24File/Minutes-03+29+13-final-formatted.pdf" target="_blank">Dourson provided "public" comments </a>to the Board based on the work he had done for PSG.</li>
<li>In 2012, Dourson and TERA, with funding from the American Chemistry Council (ACC), set up and ran a website called "<a href="http://med.uc.edu/eh/centers/rsc/risk-resources/kidschemicalsafety" target="_blank">Kids + Chemical Safety</a>." (This website is now inactive and TERA itself has been migrated to be a center at the University of Cincinnati.) The site was designed to look like a neutral source of advice for parents concerned about chemical safety, but instead <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/category/industry-influence/tag/american-chemistry-council-acc+children-safety+front-group+chemical-industry-tactics/" target="_blank">mirrored industry talking points </a>about its chemicals and sought to shift responsibility for ensuring safety to the consumer or parent and away from the industry.</li>
</ul><p style="">
"It is not even subtle," Sheldon Krimsky, a Tufts University professor who studies ethics in science and medicine and has reviewed Dourson's work, told the AP. "He has chosen to be the voice of the chemical industry. His role as a scientist is simply the role of an industry-hired lawyer—only to give the best case for their client."
</p><p>
Unsurprisingly, the chemical industry and trade associations have cheered the choice.
</p><p>
"His knowledge, experience and leadership will strengthen EPA's processes for evaluating and incorporating high quality science into regulatory decision making," said Jon Corley, the American Chemistry Council's spokesman.
</p><p>
CropLife America—the main trade and lobbying group for the pesticide industry—called Dourson "a perfect fit."
</p><p>
"We welcome Dr. Dourson's nomination," CropLife America
<a href="http://www.croplifeamerica.org/cla-commends-white-house-nomination-dourson-epa/" target="_blank">said on its website</a>. "His extensive experience in risk assessment and science, both in government and private sector make him a valuable addition to the office."
</p>
Read More
Show Less
EPA Chemical Safety Nominee Is a Hired Gun for Tobacco and Chemical Industries
13 September 2017
Popular
Antoine2K / Shutterstock
By Jack Pratt
For decades, a weak law left Americans at risk from toxic chemicals in everyday products such as cleaners and fabrics. As a result, chemicals tied to infertility, learning disabilities and even cancer found their way into all our homes, schools and workplaces.
A turn-around looked likely in 2016 when Congress passed a strong, bipartisan law to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act to better protect our health. The agency charged with carrying out the new law hit the ground running and was making good progress.
<p style="">That is, until a new president was elected and new leadership took over the reins at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">EPA</a>).</p><p style="">The <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump administration</a> first <a href="https://www.edf.org/blog/2017/05/10/conflicts-interest-taint-trumps-environmental-picks-top-7-examples" target="_blank">installed a top official</a> from the main chemical industry lobbying group to oversee changes to rules that will determine how chemicals are reviewed for safety. The changes she made could undermine efforts to protect us from harmful chemicals for many years to come, according to <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/22/trump-epa-energy-chemicals-clash-239875" target="_blank">Politico</a>.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed"></p><div id="49888" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2TT6YQ1576663137"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="894940269543600128" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">'Industry Friendly' @EPA Completes Review of 600 New Chemicals https://t.co/SlI8X2P5d1 @EnvDefenseFund @ewg @OrganicConsumer</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/894940269543600128">1502205362.0</a></blockquote></div><p></p><p style="">The push to return America to its toxic past may now accelerate with Trump's subsequent nomination of Michael Dourson to run the EPA's entire chemical safety program.<br></p><p>Dourson has made a career as a hired gun for the chemical industry, helping clients play down concerns over toxic chemicals with known and potentially severe health effects.</p><p style=""><strong>Defended tobacco and Teflon</strong></p><p style="">If confirmed to the top job at the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Dourson will be regulating his old industry friends. It's a pattern we keep seeing with Trump's administration as the president and his appointees turn the federal government's mission to protect public health on its head.</p><p>Dourson's paid work for industry goes back several decades and includes work he did for the <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20141219/one-stop-science-shop-has-become-favorite-industry%E2%80%94and-texas" target="_blank">tobacco industry </a>in the late 1990s and early 2000s.</p><p style="">Also on his resume is his work involving the "Teflon" chemical PFOA, which continues to affect <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water">drinking water</a> in places such as West Virginia, Ohio, New York and Vermont. And he worked for the manufacturer of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chlorpyrifos" target="_blank">controversial pesticide chlorpyrifos</a>, which Dourson defended and the Trump EPA decided not to ban despite expert calls to do so.</p><p style=""><strong>Dourson: Toxic toys? Kids should wash hands</strong></p><p>Among other things, Dourson's company used industry money to develop and run a now-defunct website, "<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20161013022021/http:/kidschemicalsafety.org:80/health/" target="_blank">kidschemicalsafety.org</a>," with copy penned by staff from chemical industry consulting firms who sought to put chemical hazards "into context."</p><p>The website told parents, for example, that even water can be toxic at high exposure levels, "but few people would want to ban" water.</p><p>It also played down concerns about chemicals in products such as toys, shifting the burden to parents by suggesting they make sure to read labels, keep toys out of their children's mouths, and make sure kids wash their hands after playing.</p><p style=""><strong>His defense: Jesus hung out with shady people, too</strong></p><p style="">Of course, none of Dourson's work will come as a shock to anyone who has followed industry tactics closely. Whether professional <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-denier">climate deniers</a> or <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2017/04/03/putting-profits-over-our-childrens-health/" target="_blank">big tobacco</a>, manufacturing doubt is a well-known dark art.</p><p>The problem here is that if the Senate votes to confirm him, Dourson will speak from a government office.</p><p>Running the toxics office at the EPA is unlikely to change Dourson's outlook. After all, this is the man who defended his work for tobacco <a href="https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/12/19/16546/one-stop-science-shop-has-become-favorite-industry-and-texas" target="_blank">to downplay concerns</a> about second-hand smoke by saying "Jesus hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors."</p><p style="">That logic may help Dourson sleep at night, but it won't provide much solace to those of us who were hoping the new law would do a better job protecting us from toxic chemicals.</p><p style=""><em>Jack Pratt is the chemicals campaign director at <a href="https://www.edf.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Defense Fund</a>. </em></p>
Read More
Show Less