Agent Orange (and other defoliants)

Bull79Dog:

I have been involved in the defoliant controversy since September, 1971 and my first hospitalization at 23 for some bizzare afflictions. Maybe, just maybe this issue will be addressed if veterans can unite and demand action.

I suggest every Nam vet read the book 'Vietnam Rain Agents' by Charles Kelley (available at Amazon.com/I have no connection with the book and do not know Mr. Kelley). Kelley does an excellent job of laying out the defoliant scenario. He does get a little emotional in some areas of the book but one can understand why when you finish reading the book.

The problem that exists is the concentration on only Dioxin & Agent Orange by the VA, our government and the chemical companies. They have never addressed Agent White, Agent Blue or Agent Yellow, how these defoliants were used in mixtures and combinations of one or more of them and studies have never been conducted using Nam vets againsta general population with no exposure (whether civilian, veterans or military). The Ranch Hand study is a farce of epic proportion and of no scientific value at all.

South Korea has completed a study comparing their vets against a general population group of civilians and military (an outside research team was used and all were blind studies - no one in the research group knew who were Nam vets or a control group member...this has never been done by our government). The results, absolutly startling. All US studies have been beholding to the VA or US government.

I suggest every Nam vet read the book. I have forwarded copies to my elected representatives in Congress, attached a letter, sent an email telling them to expect the book and have also called their offices in Washington to inform them I expect them to read the book. I plan to follow up and verify if they have done so. Senator Shays (R, CT) and Dodd (D, CT) have already told me they will read the book as I spoke directly with them (they called me).

We should attempt to get at least a few Nam vets in every state to do the same and to keep shaking the tree until they get a reply of some kind from their Congressional members. I'm willing to pitch in and buy some additional book but cannot afford to purchase the more than 600 we would need to make sure every member receives a copy.

I would think that through Popasmoke, we could get at least two or three members from each state to help out. I'm willing to compile the list state by state of members who will help and will take care of any communications, paperwork, Congressional lists, addresses, phone numbers. I'm sure I can contact the publisher and get a discount on a large purchase of the books.

Please let me know what you think of the idea (or anyone here) and suggestions are most welcome. I am in dead earnest and will do whatever is necessary to get the ball rolling but I would appreciate any help offered. The books are $23.00 each but I'm sure purchasing 600 to 700 books we can get the price down.

S/F Gordon

I worked 100 yards from the ramp area where they loaded the Ranch Hand aircraft with that crap. If they got a bit sloppy the wind would bring it to us. It would make my skin itch.

So far no problems. That was thirty six years ago...

Moe1942:

Moe...consider yourself lucky. No one is saying there are those who have not been affected. Time in theater, amount of exposure, a persons genetic makeup and immune response are all factors to consider.

If you look at the stats from independent studies though, there is no denying something is terribly wrong with hundreds of thousands of Nam vets that cannot be explained or defined by the medical community.

Lets hope you remain healthy and live to a ripe old age.

S/F Gordon

GMello wrote: Moe...consider yourself lucky. No one is saying there are those who have not been affected. Time in theater, amount of exposure, a persons genetic makeup and immune response are all factors to consider.

If you look at the stats from independent studies though, there is no denying something is terribly wrong with hundreds of thousands of Nam vets that cannot be explained or defined by the medical community.

Lets hope you remain healthy and live to a ripe old age.

S/F Gordon

Thanks, I was there a year and they loaded up everyday. I'm on the agent orange register and get checked regularly by a non VA doc.

I have given it a lot of thought over the years...

Agent Orange site

This looked interesting. Haven't taken time to go through it carefully.
Order of the Silver Rose
QUALIFYING DISEASES
******************************

Please get a full yearly physical with CAT Scan!

THE FOLLOWING DISEASES
QUALIFY A VETERAN
FOR THE SILVER ROSE AWARD

All of the diseases on the VA's list of conditions linked to the herbicide exposure appear in the left-hand column. If there is a requirement that the disease appear within a certain period of time, the period of time appears in the right-hand column.

DISEASES RECOGNIZED BY THE VA AS CONNECTED TO AGENT ORANGE EXPOSURE LENGTH OF TIME REQUIREMENTS: WHEN SYMPTOMS OF THE DISEASE HAVE TO APPEAR AND RESULT IN A DISABILITY (AT LEAST 10 PERCENT DISABLING) IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR BENEFITS.
TYPES OF CANCER / TIME REQUIREMENT
Cancer of the Bronchus No time requirement (veteran qualifies no matter when the disease first appears.)
Cancer of the Larnyx No time requirement (veteran qualifies no matter when the disease first appears.)
Lung Cancer No time requirement (veteran qualifies no matter when the disease first appears.)
Cancer of the Trachea No time requirement (veteran qualifies no matter when the disease first appears.)
Prostate Cancer No time requirement (veteran qualifies no matter when the disease first appears.)
Hodgkin's Disease No time requirement (veteran qualifies no matter when the disease first appears.)
Chronic Lymphatic Leukemia No time requirement (veteran qualifies no matter when the disease first appears.)
Multiple Myeloma No time requirement (veteran qualifies no matter when the disease first appears.)
Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma No time requirement (veteran qualifies no matter when the disease first appears.)
TYPES OF SOFT TISSUE SARCOMA TIME REQUIREMENT
Adult Fibrosarcoma
Alveolar Soft Part Sarcoma
Angiosarcoma
Clear Cell Sarcoma of Aponeuroses
Clear Cell Sarcoma of Tendons
Congenital Fibrosarcoma
Dermatofibrosarcoma Protuberans
Ectomesenchymoma
Epithelioid Malignant Leiomyosarcoma
Epithelioid Malignant Schwannoma
Epithelioid Sarcoma
Extraskeltal Ewing's Sarcoma
Hemangiosarcoma
Infantile Fibrosarcoma
Leiomyosarcoma
Liposarcoma
Lymphangiosarcoma
Malignant Fibrous Histiocytoma
Malignant ganglioneuroma
Malignant Giant Cell Tumor of the Tendon
Sheath
Malignant Glandular Schwannoma
Malignant Glomus Tumor
Malignant granular cell tumor
Malignant Hemangiopericytoma
Malignant Mesenchymoma
Malignant Schwannoma with Rhabdomyoblastic differentiation
Prolifertationg (systemic)Angiendotheliomatosis
Rhabdomyosarcoma
Synovial Sarcoma No Time Requirement
(veteran qualifies no matter when sarcoma first appears)

DISEASES OTHER THAN CANCER TIME REQUIREMENT
Peripheral Neuropathy (acute or subacute)

Within months of exposure to agent orange in Vietnam and cured within 2 years after symptoms first appear
(Note: this time requirement is written so narrowly it appears to be impossible for any Vietnam veteran to qualify)
Chloracne Within one year of the last day the veteran served in Vietnam.
Porphyria Cutanea Tarda Within one year of the last day the veteran served in Vietnam.
Diabetes

Complications:

Skin Conditions:
diabetic dermopathy
necrobiosis lipoidica
diabeticorum
diabetic blisters
eruptive xanthomatosis

Gum Disease:
Oral Infection
Fungal Infection
Poor Healing
Dry Mouth

Eye Disease:
Blindness
Retinopathy
Glaucoma
Cataracts

Kidney Disease

Transplantation:
Kidney
Pancreas

Neuropathy:
Charcot’s joint
Cranial neuropathy
Autonomic neuropathy
Compression mononeuropathy
Femoral neuropathy
Thoracic or lumbar radiculopathy
Unilateral foot drop

Cardiovascular Health:
Heart Attack
Stroke
No Time Requirement
(veteran qualifies no matter when Diabetes first appears)
DISABILITIES IN CHILDREN OF VIETNAM VETERANS TIME REQUIREMENT
Spina Bifida Child must have been conceived after veteran first arrived in Vietnam.
BIRTH DEFECTS IN CHILDREN OF FEMALE VIETNAM VETERANS TIME REQUIREMENT
Once final rules are issued, the birth defects that qualify for benefits will be listed on NVLSP's website and here. http://www.nvlsp.org
Child must have been conceived after veteran first arrived in Vietnam.

OK I'll bite

Just what is "The Silver Rose Award?"

Beats me. Something I found on veterans' spouses chat board.

Was going to crop out the title, but decided against it as they deserve credit for for assembling the info. Haven't had time to check it thoroughly, but that updated list seemed worthy of reposting. :rolleyes:

Silver Rose Award

Found this on the web site: SILVER ROSE AWARD~! Hope this helps~! MACK

Honoring the Victims of Agent Orange

The Silver Rose Award consists of a Certificate, Award Card, Poster and Medal (shown immediately below) with an Orange and White neck-drape Ribbon.

Contact Us: fuzzyfrog@intouchmi.com Put "AO Flag" in subject line.

Direct all information and questions regarding The Order of The Silver Rose to ....

GARY CHENETT
National Director
PH: 810-714-2748
Email: fuzzyfrog@2fords.net

Or To

NANCY REKOWSKI
National Commander
PH: 814-965-5760
Email: nancyrekowski@hotmail.com

Over 3,000 Silver Rose Awards have been awarded to date.

Interesting

Thanks. I hadn't seen the site, only the list I posted from the spouses' chat board.

Never heard of it before, but must admire the Lady who started it. Her Dad would be proud.

Gordon,

Good idea about book. I am checking w/ local libraries to see if they have copies, if not I will ask them to "requisition" copies.

Maybe that Silver Rose organization can assist in this?

AO spraying; areas and quantities

Must find K-paige's identity, many kudos for the links she has accumulated;
http://vietnamresearch.com/agento/spray.html AO spraying; areas and quantities

Kelley's Book

Finally got it! Had library order it, came in and I know I must have my own.
Very good. Am amazed he had the stamina to finish it. My own health problems due to poisonings crop up from time to time and make it difficult to do anything requiring higher cognitve functioning.

Think it was this thread that I read about it. "Vietnam's Rain Agents Orange, White, and Blue and Agents of Mass Destruction" by Charles Kelley.

Thanks, Kelley, for having the fortitude, stamina, and courage to write it down. I know all about the fear of retaliation, thank you for your bravery long after your term to serve had passed. Our politicians must feel uncomfortable around you, with good reason.

"IT'S DIFFICULT TO GET A MAN TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING, IF
HIS SALARY DEPENDS UPON HIM NOT UNDERSTANDING."
UPTON SINCLAIR

I must point out that Kelley's premise that civilians have more rights to sue over toxic tort is true in theory, but in reality, it is very, very hard. Now if someone goes permanently horizontal, vegetable or worm fodder, and it can be proven causality was poison, that is a horse of a different color.

I live in the Chemical Corridor, and it is virtually impossible to find an attorney to take a case like that unless exposure was due to a train derailment or massive spill, can you spell C L A S S A C T I O N? I know because I tried to find an attorney, including the ones featured prominently in the news for handling toxic tort cases.

Must face it, regular citizens aren't treated any better than you guys, the dilemma is that y'all are promised care that you never receive.

Kelley's book is excellent and you can be sure any toxic tort attorney worth their weight will have a copy. Excellent book, excellent. Needs to be read w/ highlighter in hand or notepad.

Conflicts of Interest in Chem and Mold Research

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/files/MoldConceptforwwwFNL1.pdf .

NTP on mold, see above

February 28, 2007

David A. Schwartz, M.D.
Director
National Toxicology Program
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
P.O. Box 12233
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Fax: 919.541.2260

Dear Dr. Schwartz,

We are writing to express significant concerns with the
National Toxicology Program's (NTP) Center for the
Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR)
management and review process for evaluating the
reproductive and developmental effects of chemicals. It has
recently come to our attention that CERHR is managed by a
private consulting firm, Sciences International (SI), a
company with historic ties to the tobacco industry and a
client base that appears to include manufacturers of
substances that might be subject to CERHR review, including
the chemical up for review on March 5, 2007, bisphenol A
(BPA). We think that the public would be very surprised to
learn that industry consultants are managing critical
public health agencies.

The ties between SI and industry raise important ethical
issues that we describe in detail below. The fundamental
question raised by the BPA case is whether or not
government health assessments should be managed by private
consulting firms with ties to the industry that
manufactures the chemicals under review. We are very
concerned that this relationship may influence the outcome
of the BPA assessment.

These concerns are heightened by the Conflict of Interest
policy document we received from Michael Shelby, the
director of CERHR. In contrast to the CERHR policy for
panel members who must disclose all potential conflicts of
interest, the CERHR policy for consultants, sent to us by
Mr. Shelby, states plainly that, "No specific restrictions
are placed on the contractor." [1] This seems to mean that
contractors with serious conflicts of interest would not
have to disclose them and, in fact, could oversee analyses
that could dramatically affect the future health and
wellbeing of the American public. We would very much
appreciate your clarification of this policy. Further, we
request that prior to the March 5, 2007 meeting, SI and its
employees disclose all potential conflicts of interest
relative to BPA. Absent such disclosure, the integrity of
the entire BPA review process will be in question.

In 1998, NTP established the Center for the Evaluation of
Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR) to "serve as an
environmental health resource to the public and to
regulatory and health agencies," and to
provide "scientifically-based, uniform assessments of the
potential for adverse effects on reproduction and
development caused by agents to which humans may be
exposed" via "rigorous evaluations of the scientific
literature by independent panels of scientists." [2]

CERHR's mission is vital because five to ten percent of
couples experience fertility problems, up to five percent
of babies have birth defects, and a growing body of
scientific evidence shows that exposures to industrial
chemicals can impact reproduction and development. [3]

Environmental Working Group (EWG) was shocked to learn,
therefore, that CERHR — a government agency under the
auspices of the National Institutes of Health — is actually
being run by a private consulting firm known as Sciences
International (SI). To quote the SI website:

"The most significant project at our firm is the management
of the National Toxicology Program's Center for the
Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction, one of the
premiere institutions for evaluation of reproductive and
developmental health issues." [4]
This relationship is even more troubling because there are
serious conflicts of interest and ethical concerns
surrounding this contractor that involve apparent financial
ties with the chemical industry and non-disclosure of these
relationships.

On March 5, 2007 a CERHR expert panel is scheduled to
evaluate the reproductive hazards presented by bisphenol A
(BPA). This expert panel will be basing their decision on a
300-page document describing the hazards of BPA that was
prepared by Sciences International. BPA is a heavily used
industrial chemical that is integral to production of hard
plastics and is found in the liners of metal food cans and
in hard plastic containers. More than 200 animal studies
show that BPA is toxic at very low doses. [5] The Centers
for Disease Control has found BPA in 95 percent of people
tested at levels that raise health concerns sufficient to
warrant this major review by CERHR. [6] And the peer—
reviewed science suggests that BPA may be contributing to
increases in many adverse health conditions in the human
population including breast cancer, prostate cancer and
insulin resistance. [7-12]

Several ethical concerns surround SI's role in this
process, including the company's financial ties to the
chemical industry and their failure to disclose key
information in the BPA review that may affect the expert
panel's assessment of the chemical. These concerns are
discussed further below.

SI conflicts of interest. SI appears to have a close
working relationship with, and financial ties to, companies
that manufacture the chemicals SI is charged with reviewing
for CERHR. To our knowledge, SI has not disclosed these
ties. As one example, in 2004, Anthony Scialli, the SI
employee named as the lead SI manager of CERHR, co-authored
a scientific paper with an employee of Dow Chemical Company
on the critical issue of how animal test results can be
applied to human health risk. [13]. Dow is a major producer
of BPA. [14] The study was funded by the European Chemical
Industry Council. There appears to be no way for the public
to determine whether or not any SI clients are
manufacturers or major users of BPA or any other chemical
that may be reviewed by CERHR. SI notes on its website that
its clientele comprise "approximately 50% public sector and
50% private sector clients." [15] Yet while SI lists the
names of many of its public sector clients, SI's private
sector clients are identified only as "various companies,
trade organizations, and law firms." [16]

Scientists must sign conflict of interest forms before they
may serve on a CERHR panel. [17] But CERHR's Director
Michael Shelby indicates that "no specific restrictions are
placed on the contractor."[1] This policy is in stark
contrast to the disclosure procedures applied to CERHR
panel members, and is completely unacceptable. To earn the
public trust, SI must disclose all financial and research
ties that it has with any company or other entity that
might have even a potential conflict of interest with the
work carries out in its managing duty at the CERHR.

SI failure to investigate study funding sources. In its
review document on BPA, SI fails to disclose industry
funding sources and author affiliations for major studies
cited in the document. For example, on page 177 in the
document, SI states "[financial] support not indicated" for
several important studies finding no adverse effects from
BPA at low levels of exposure. [18] But, in fact, both
studies are authored by scientists who routinely perform
work for the chemical industry trade organizations: CEFIC-
the European Chemical Industry Council and SPI-the Society
of the Plastics Industry, both of which have member
companies who manufacture or use BPA. [19] A simple request
to these scientists would likely have revealed the source
of funding.

SI's failure to identify the source of funding for these
studies is more than just an oversight. A distinct pattern
in BPA test results, relative to funding source, has been
documented in the peer-reviewed literature, most notably in
a 2005 review published in the National Institutes of
Health journal Environmental Health Perspectives. This
analysis examined more than 100 peer-reviewed studies on
BPA and found a stunning relationship between funding
source and study outcome: 100% of industry-sponsored
studies found no adverse effects of BPA at low doses,
compared to just 4% of independent studies. [20] Given the
severe bias for industry-funded studies to find BPA "safe,"
funding sources for studies are a key piece of information
the CERHR expert panel should review in making
determinations on study utility. Without this information,
CERHR assessments are incomplete.

The CERHR expert panel must have thorough information on
study funding sources for the panel in order to make
informed decisions on study utility. SI has failed to
provide this.

SI failure to disclose key study limitations. In its review
of BPA studies, SI scientists fail to document known,
glaring design deficiencies that make it nearly impossible
for certain studies to detect BPA toxicity. Without this
information, in some cases the expert panel has issued
glowing endorsements of seriously flawed studies, including
a study [21] deemed by the expert panel to be "exceptional"
and "very useful," when in fact the researchers in this
study used resistant animals and animal feed that is known
to mask the toxicity of chemicals like BPA. To quote the SI
document: "This exceptional study is very useful for the
evaluation process, and will carry significant weight in
the evaluation of structural, histogenic, and fertility
endpoints." [22]

In another example, the expert panel found a study "very
useful in the evaluation" when, in fact, the National
Toxicology Program (NTP) had noted issues with the study
design that cast the findings into doubt, including the
quality of the feed, concerns with animal weight, and data
strongly suggesting that the particular experimental
animals used would be insensitive to BPA's effects. [20,
23, 24] SI did not note these concerns in its review.

The CERHR expert panel is asked to review the usefulness
and quality of literally hundreds of studies summarized in
the SI review. The panel members cannot feasibly review
each study individually, and therefore must rely heavily on
SI interpretations. Therefore, it is critical for SI to
thoroughly and accurate document study findings and
deficiencies. Their failure to do so in the case of these
key studies can inject critical bias into the review
process and severely inhibit the expert panel's ability to
make sound decisions.

SI's history as industry consultant. SI's history of
compromised ethics leads to deep concerns about its role in
managing CERHR chemical assessments. In September, 2006 the
journal Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T) detailed
SI's dealings with the tobacco giant RJ Reynolds and its
efforts to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) from tightening its regulation of a toxic pesticide.
[25] ES&T wrote that:

In December 1998, the U.S. EPA proposed several risk-
mitigation measures to protect workers handling phosphine —
a chemical for fumigating grain and other commodities. The
proposals included creating a buffer zone around fumigation
sites and notifying residents living within 750 feet. EPA
also proposed lowering the exposure threshold of phosphine
from 0.3 parts per million (ppm) to 0.03 ppm. Court
documents show that, to fend off regulations, RJ Reynolds
Tobacco Co. (RJRT) funded the Phosphine Coalition, which
successfully fought against the proposed changes. A
centerpiece of its strategy was hiring the consulting firm
Sciences International to lobby EPA and to write a study on
phosphine's toxicity.

The study was finally published in Risk Analysis in 2004.
Five people appear as authors on the paper: Betty Anderson
and two of her employees at Sciences International, and
Joel Seckar and Paul R. Harp, who are listed as members of
the Phosphine Coalition of Washington, D.C. The Phospine
Coalition does not have a street address, and the paper
does not note that Harp and Seckar are employed by RJRT.

In April 1999, officials with Sciences International met
with EPA staff to try to persuade the agency to halt the
proposed changes to phosphine regulations. A month later,
Anderson, Sciences International's executive director, sent
a memo to Seckar stating, "I believe that the approach with
the greatest likelihood of affecting EPA's position is to
prepare and publish in a peer-reviewed journal a scientific
paper or article that describes the current science on the
toxicity of phosphine." She continues, "Since I am
currently Editor-in-Chief of the international journal Risk
Analysis, perhaps the peer-review process could be
expedited, if we decide that it is the journal of choice."

At the end of 1999, RJ Reynolds released a report
highlighting the company's accomplishments. "R&D led the
Phosphine Coalition in addressing the scientific issues
involved when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
proposed a new phosphine exposure standard," reads a
passage. Further along, the document states, "The efforts
of the Coalition saved RJRT many millions of dollars."
Clearly, serious questions are raised when a company with
this history is charged with running a government program
vital to the protecting public health.

SI involved in all aspects of running CERHR

It is clear that SI is deeply involved in all aspects of
CERHR, from selecting expert panel members, setting the
agenda for panel meetings, preparing the literature
reviews, and helping to draft the panel's reports. The
intimate and unusual relationship between the firm and
CERHR is extensively documented. For example:

CERHR's website describes the agency's structure as
follows: "Under the direction of Michael Shelby, Ph.D.,
Director, CERHR at NIEHS, scientific and support staff at
NIEHS and Sciences International, Inc. operate the Center
for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR).
The Principal Investigator, Anthony Scialli, M.D., leads
the scientific and support staff at Sciences International,
Inc." [26]
The website of Sciences International states that: "The
most significant project at our firm is the management of
the National Toxicology Program's Center for the Evaluation
of Risks to Human Reproduction, one of the premiere
institutions for evaluation of reproductive and
developmental health issues." [27]
Although Dr. Scialli is the Vice President of SI, on
CERHR's on-line "contact" page his affiliation is listed
simply as "NTP Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human
Reproduction." [28]
The Federal Register notice describing the creation of
CERHR explains that: "Scientists representing NTP agencies
and Sciences International, Inc., the contractor who will
support the Center, will constitute a core committee which
will provide the initial review for [panel member]
nominations, select the expert panel membership and
establish the meeting agenda." [29]
Expert panel and chemical nominations are sent directly to
the SI offices. Some CERHR workshop sessions take place
there as well. [30, 31]
For its work — and influence — SI gets paid heftily. The
firm's current contract, which runs from June 2003 through
June 2008, is worth $5,241,109. [32]

It is not uncommon for federal agencies to contract out
certain pieces of work to consulting firms or other
contractors. However, we are unaware of any other instance
in which nearly all of the functions of a pubic health
agency have been outsourced to a private entity. Please
provide us with details on when this has been done
previously and what the bidding parameters were.

It is also unclear whether the SI contract was put out to
bid. If it was put out for competitive bid, please provide
us with the bid notice and parameters. If it was a no bid
contract, please explain the rationale for this decision.

The arrangement between CERHR and SI raises serious ethical
questions that demand immediate disclosure of financial and
research ties to chemical manufacturers and other
industries that make or use substances under review by the
CERHR. These disclosures must apply both to individual SI
staff as well as the greater institution. Questions about
the objectivity and adequacy of this review process and the
reviewers must be resolved before a final decision on BPA
is reached.

It is also critical that CERHR incorporate into its final
decision on BPA critical input from an NIEHS-sponsored
expert workshop convened in November 2006. Forty-two
leading scientists on the effects of BPA at low doses
reviewed existing literature on the issue (see attached
list). The experts are producing a series of papers
addressing the very issues being reviewed by CERHR, but
expect to have only two of them completed by the March 5th
meeting. It is our understanding that these experts are
seeing a pattern of adverse effects at low levels of
exposure similar to those measured in humans by the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention [33]. We are concerned
that CERHR is poised to make a decision on BPA prior to the
review of this important information.

Regulators, policy makers, and the general public
desperately need the "readily accessible, scientifically
authoritative" evaluations of potential reproductive and
developmental toxins that CERHR is supposed to be
providing. [34] But these evaluations will only serve to
help protect human and environmental health if they are
truly objective and trustworthy. Given that bisphenol A is
found in consumer products as diverse as baby bottles, food-
can linings and dental sealants, this is a question that
the public has a right — and a need — to know.

Sincerely,

Richard Wiles
Executive Director
Environmental Working Group

Cc: Mike Leavitt, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services
John Howard, M.D., M.P.H., J.D., LL.M., Director, National
Institutes of Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for
Disease Control, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services
Andrew C. von Eschenbach, M.D., Commissioner, U.S. Food and
Drug Administration
William Slikker, Jr., Ph.D., Director, National Center for
Toxicological Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Michael Shelby, Ph.D., Center for the Evaluation of Risks
to Human Reproduction, National Toxicology Program
Representative Henry Waxman, Chair, Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform
Representative Tom Davis, Ranking, Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform
Representative John Dingell, Chair, Committee on Energy and
Commerce
Representative Joe Barton, Ranking, Committee on Energy and
Commerce
Senator Barbara Boxer, Chair, Committee on Environment and
Public Works
Senator James Inhofe, Ranking, Committee on Environment and
Public Works
Robert E. Chapin, Ph.D., Chair, CERHR Expert Panel on BPA,
Pfizer, Inc.
Jane Adams, Ph.D., CERHR Expert Panel on BPA, University of
Massachusetts
Kim Boekelheide, M.D., Ph.D., CERHR Expert Panel on BPA,
Brown University
Michael A. Gallo, Ph.D., CERHR Expert Panel on BPA, UMDNJ —
Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
L. Earl Gray, Jr., Ph.D., CERHR Expert Panel on BPA, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Simon W. Hayward, Ph.D., CERHR Expert Panel on BPA,
Vanderbilt University Medical Center
Peter S.J. Lees, Ph.D., CERHR Expert Panel on BPA, Johns
Hopkins University
Barry S. McIntyre, Ph.D., CERHR Expert Panel on BPA,
Schering Plough Research Institute
Michael J. McPhaul, Ph.D., CERHR Expert Panel on BPA,
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
Kenneth M. Portier, Ph.D., CERHR Expert Panel on BPA,
American Cancer Society
Teresa M. Schnorr, Ph.D., CERHR Expert Panel on BPA,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Sherry G. Selevan, Ph.D., CERHR Expert Panel on BPA, U.S.
Public Health Service (Ret.)
John G. Vandenbergh, Ph.D., CERHR Expert Panel on BPA,
North Carolina State University
Kendall B. Wallace, Ph.D., CERHR Expert Panel on BPA,
University of Minnesota
Susan R. Woskie, Ph.D., CERHR Expert Panel on BPA,
University of Massachusetts

References

[1] Personal communication with Michael Shelby. Received
summary of CERHR's conflict of interest policy on February
23, 2007 prepared by Shelby in response to EWG's request
for official copies of this policy on February 16, 2007.

[2] Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human
Reproduction (CERHR). 2007. "About CERHR."
http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/aboutCERHR/index.html . Accessed
on February 13, 2007.

[3] Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human
Reproduction (CERHR). 2007. "About CERHR."
http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/aboutCERHR/index.html . Accessed
on February 13, 2007.

[4] Sciences International. 2007. "Reproductive and
Environmental Health Practice Area."
http://www.sciences.com/practice-areas/reproductive.html .
Accessed on February 13, 2007.

[5] The Endocrine Disruptor Exchange. Accessed on February
23, 2007.
http://www.endocrinedisruption.org/products/bisphenol_a

[6] Calafat AM, Kuklenyik Z, Reidy JA, Caudill SP, Ekong J,
Needham L. 2005. Urinary concentrations of Bisphenol A and
4-Nonylphenol in a human reference population.
Environmental Health Perspectives 113:391-395.

[7] Munoz-de-Toro M, Markey CM, Wadia PR, Luque EH, Rubin
BS, Sonnenschein C, Soto AM. 2005. Perinatal exposure to
bisphenol-A alters peripubertal mammary gland development
in mice. Endocrinology 146(9):4138-47.

[8] Markey CM, Luque EH, Munoz-de-Toro M, Sonnenschein C,
Soto AM. 2001. In utero exposure to Bisphenol A alters the
development and tissue organization of the mouse mammary
gland. Biology of Reproduction 65(4):1215-23.

[9] Timms BG, Howdeshell KL, Barton L, Bradley S, Richter
CA, vom Saal FS. 2005. Estrogenic chemicals in plastic and
oral contraceptives disrupt development of the fetal mouse
prostate and urethra. Proc Natl Acad Sci 102(19):7014-9.

[10] Ho SM, Tang WY, Belmonte de Frausto J, Prins GS. 2006.
Developmental exposure to esradiol and bisphenol A
increases susceptibility to prostate carcinogenesis and
epigenetically regulates phsophodiesterase type 4 variant
4. Cancer Research 66(11):5624-32.

[11] Alonso-Magdalena P, Morimoto S, Ripoll C, Fuentes E,
Nadal A. 2006. The estrogenic effect of Bisphenol A
disrupts pancreatic §-cell function in vivo and induces
insulin resistance. Environmental Health Perspectives 114
(1):106-112.

[12] Vandenberg LN, Maffini MV, Wadia PR, Sonnenschein C,
Rubin BS, Soto AM. 2007. Exposure to environmentally
relevant doses of the xenoestrogen bisphenol-A alters
development of the fetal mouse mammary gland. Endocrinology
148(1):116-27.

[13] Carney EW, Scialli AR, Watson RE, DeSesso JM. 2004.
Mechanisms regulating toxicant disposition to the embryo
during early pregnancy: An interspecies comparison. Birth
Defects Res C Embryo Today. 72(4):345-60. Abstract
available at: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-
bin/abstract/109867213/ABSTRACT

[14] US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002.
Inventory Update Reporting. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/iur/

[15] Sciences International. 2007. "Clients."
http://www.sciences.com/clients/index.html . Accessed on
February 13, 2007.

[16] Sciences International. 2007. "Clients."
http://www.sciences.com/clients/index.html . Accessed on
February 13, 2007.

[17] Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human
Reproduction (CERHR). 2007. CERHR Expert Panel Guidelines.
http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/aboutCERHR/guidelines.pdf .

[18] Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human
Reproduction (CERHR). 2006. Draft NTP-CERHR report on the
reproductive and developmental toxicity of bisphenol A.
December 2006.
http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/chemicals/bisphenol/pubcomm-
bisphenol.html

[19] Frederick S. vom Saal. 2007. Comments on the report of
the expert panel on bisphenol A.
http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/chemicals/bisphenol/pubcomm/
vomsaal_response_BPA_Report.pdf

[20] vom Saal FS, Hughes C. 2005. An extensive new
literature concerning low-dose effects of bisphenol A shows
the need for a new risk assessment. Environ Health
Perspect. 113(8):926-33.

[21] Tyl RW, Myers CB, Marr MC, Thomas BF, Keimowitz AR,
Brine DR, Veselica MM, Fail PA, Chang TY, Seely JC, Joiner
RL, Butala JH, Dimond SS, Cagen SZ, Shiotsuka RN, Stropp
GD, and Waechter JM. 2002. Three-Generation Reproductive
Toxicity Study of Dietary Bisphenol A in CD Sprague-Dawley
Rats. Toxicol. Sci. 68: 121-146.

[22] Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human
Reproduction (CERHR). 2006. Draft NTP-CERHR report on the
reproductive and developmental toxicity of bisphenol A.
December 2006.
http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/chemicals/bisphenol/pubcomm-
bisphenol.html

[23] National Toxicology Program (NTP). 2001. National
Toxicology Program's Report of the Endocrine Disruptors Low
Dose Peer Review. Research Triangle Park, NC:National
Toxicology Program.
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/liason/LowDosePeerFinalR
pt.pdf

[24] Ashby J, Tinwell H, Haseman J. 1999. Lack of effects
for low dose levels of bisphenol A (BPA) and
diethylstilbestrol (DES) on the prostate gland of CF1 mice
exposed in utero. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 30:156—166.

[25] Environmental Science & Technology Policy News. 2006.
Journals feel pressure to adopt disclosure rules. After an
inquiry by ES&T, three leading science societies say they
will now examine conflict-of-interest policies. September
20, 2006. http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-
w/2006/sep/policy/pt_disclosure.html

[26] Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human
Reproduction (CERHR). 2007. "About CERHR."
http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/aboutCERHR/index.html . Accessed
on February 13, 2007.

[27] Sciences International. 2007. "Reproductive and
Environmental Health Practice Area."
http://www.sciences.com/practice-areas/reproductive.html .
Accessed on February 13, 2007.

[28] Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human
Reproduction (CERHR). 2007. "Contact CERHR."
http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/contactus/index.html . Accessed
on February 13, 2007.

[29] Federal Register. December 14, 1998. Volume 63 (239):
68782. DOCID:fr14de98-73

[30] Federal Register. August 5, 1999. Volume 64 (150):
42707-42708. DOCID:fr05au99-108

[31] National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
1999. Center set up to evaluate evidence of chemical
threats to human reproduction. Press Jan. 6, 1999.
http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/news/press/pr1_6_99.html

[32] Office of Acquisitions, National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences. Active Research and
Development Contracts as of Oct 12, 2006.
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/omamb/rcb/randdext.htm

[33] Calafat AM, Kuklenyik Z, Reidy JA, Caudill SP, Ekong
J, Needham L. 2005. Urinary concentrations of Bisphenol A
and 4-Nonylphenol in a human reference population.
Environmental Health Perspectives 113:391-395.

[34] Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human
Reproduction (CERHR). 2007. "About CERHR."
http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/aboutCERHR/index.html . Accessed
on February 13, 2007.