Industry’s Lack of Transparency delays Human Health Protections
Photo by Carl Bohacek, used with permission
The linked paper is an excellent peer-reviewed review examining why data on and recommendations for mitigating the health effects of environmental chemicals are often divergent and delayed. For example, the EPA learned about widespread PFOS/PFOA contamination of human blood in 1998 and took until 2021 to issue a drinking water standard for these compounds. In 2023, a full 25 years after US EPA was notified, both PFOS and PFOA were classified as “likley carcinogens.”
As one cause for delay, the authors discuss the demonstrated and documented bias of results produced by “those with a financial stake in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of hazardous agents,” [refs 52-54,145-151] and, separately the challenges of independent researchers studying toxicity when toxic chemicals are present in “ever changing product formulations.” Independent researchers are not privy to the timing or nature of changes the manufacturer implements, protected as Confidential Business Information.
I agree with this analysis, but feel that the deleterious effects caused by the lack of transparency from chemical manufactures is understated. In an effort to understand the complex movements of chemicals in the environment - AND to understand the effects of said chemicals or derivatives in the even more complex human population (real humans, not a homogeneous population convenient to the manufacturer), researchers need much more information: where the chemicals are used (products/communities), where they are released, how they break down, how they partition and where standard material can be obtained in the case of proprietary compounds. It's possible an even more in depth review of the case studies included could find not only a lack of manufacturer transparency but perhaps willful misdirection contributing to the delay of data collection and meaningful public health actions.
The global market for glyphosate, a broad spectrum systemic herbicide the IARC has classified as "probably" carcinogenic to humans, is approaching $8 billion dollars a year, of which Bayer takes the lion’s share. In 2005, Dupont sold $1 billion dollars of Teflon products, production enabled by the notoriously globally-distributed PFOA. Johnson & Johnson finally stopped using talc in their Baby Powder in the wake of dozens of lawsuits alleging uterine cancer associated with asbestos. With these massive dollar amounts secured by commercial entities, it’s clear where we, the at-risk and paying public, should look to fulfill the authors’ suggestion to “increase funding for research in the public interest.” Based on the recommendations summarized in this paper, the money should come from the manufactures and be distributed to independent researchers who are ready to publicly declare they have no conflict of interest.
Companies that produce and use chemicals in their products need to be financially accountable for studies to understand, monitor and protect the environment and the human population from their profit centers. Funding should be distributed from the manufactures to independent researchers before the chemicals/products enter the market.
