Baltimore Sun  [Printer-friendly version]
April 17, 2006

SCIENCE-FOR-HIRE HAZARDOUS TO HEALTH

[Rachel's introduction: "What appears at first blush to be good
government reform is in fact a backdoor attempt to undermine existing
environmental laws. If this is successful, the uncertainty
manufactured by polluters will be written into federal risk
assessments, providing the justification to weaken public health
protection."]

By David Michaels**

WASHINGTON -- Thank You for Smoking, which has opened in movie
theaters across the nation, reminds us of the tobacco industry's
diabolical realization that it could delay public health protection by
manufacturing uncertainty about the risks of smoking. For 50 years,
tobacco companies employed a stable of scientists to challenge the
evidence that cigarettes caused lung cancer.

Scientists paid to create doubt dissected every study and highlighted
flaws and inconsistencies in order to convince public health officials
not that cigarettes were safe, but that there was not yet sufficient
evidence of their danger to justify limiting places where tobacco
could be smoked.

Not surprisingly, other industries recognized the brilliance of
tobacco's approach and bankrolled campaigns to discredit studies
documenting the adverse health effects of exposure to lead, mercury,
chromium, beryllium, benzene, plastics and a long list of pesticides
and other toxic chemicals. Manufacturing uncertainty is now so
commonplace that it is unusual for the science behind an environmental
regulation not to be challenged.

These days, the most well-known and probably best-funded of these
campaigns is the one launched by the fossil fuel industry to create
doubt about environmental and public health impacts of global warming.
When confronted by overwhelming worldwide scientific agreement, the
industry and its political allies have followed the tobacco road.

ABC News recently reported on a 1998 memo by the American Petroleum
Institute that reads, "Victory will be achieved when... average
citizens recognize uncertainties in climate science."

In 2002, Republican political consultant Frank Luntz sent his clients
a strategy memo that asserted: "The scientific debate remains open.
Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming in the
scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the
scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will
change accordingly."

Except when political appointees override the judgment of career
federal scientists (as when a White House staffer rewrote an
Environmental Protection Agency report on global warming to highlight
scientific uncertainty), the nonpolitical staff at regulatory agencies
can generally see through these crude efforts to create doubt. And
Congress has refused to pass the Bush administration's attempts, such
as the initiative with the Orwellian name "Clear Skies," to weaken
environmental laws.

Clearly frustrated, the White House is making a run around Congress to
change the way the agencies conduct risk assessments, the studies that
form the basis for health protections. The Office of Management and
Budget has proposed mandatory "guidelines" that would require agencies
to conduct impossibly comprehensive risk assessments before issuing
scientific or technical documents, including the rules polluters have
to follow.

What appears at first blush to be good government reform is in fact a
backdoor attempt to undermine existing environmental laws. If this is
successful, the uncertainty manufactured by polluters will be written
into federal risk assessments, providing the justification to weaken
public health protection.

The White House should thank the tobacco industry for providing the
groundwork for the risk assessment proposal.

Thank you for Smoking was written in the early 1990s, when the
cigarette manufacturers were under attack, particularly from federal
agencies. A 1992 EPA risk assessment estimated that every year,
secondhand tobacco smoke killed 3,000 nonsmokers and caused more than
150,000 respiratory infections among children.

Big tobacco's response, disputing EPA estimates, was spearheaded by
experts in the lucrative new industry science called "product
defense."

The cigarette manufacturers' scientists-for-hire were rarely
successful in swaying federal scientists, so the industry arranged for
other legislation whose name was misleading, the "Data Quality Act"
(DQA), to be slipped into an appropriations bill in 2001 without
hearing or debate. The DQA allows affected parties to challenge a
government report or document, giving tobacco a new forum to argue
over science and to further delay the government's smoking prevention
activities.

Now, with its risk assessment proposal, the Bush administration is
interpreting the DQA as a license to override the Clean Air Act and
laws meant to protect the public's health and environment.

Years from now, we will view these attempts by the administration and
hired scientific guns to weaken environmental protections with the
same outrage with which we now look back on the deceits perpetrated by
Big Tobacco. But will years from now be too late?

** David Michaels is a professor and associate chairman of the
department of environmental and occupational health at the George
Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services. His
e-mail is eohdmm@gwumc.edu.

Copyright 2006, The Baltimore Sun