Jump to full article: Environmental Health Perspectives (NIEHS), 2005-12-03
Author: Patricia A. McDaniel,1 Gina Solomon,2,3 and Ruth E. Malone4
Intro: Although others have charged that agencies responsible for protecting human health and the environment are unduly influenced by the industries they regulate (Abraham 2002; Huff 2002), it is rare to be able to study this process from the perspective of the regulated industry. This study provides documentation of the behind-the-scenes activities of an industry as it attempts to influence the regulatory process on matters that have a direct bearing on public health. . . .
the case studies discussed here provide insight into tactics that the tobacco industry applies to a regulatory agency when trying to influence the outcome of a decision. These tactics go significantly beyond the usual approaches--such as participation in public comment periods and public meetings--to influence scientific and regulatory decision making. Tobacco industry tactics described in these cases include:
* Encouraging a chemical company (Zoecon) to advocate for high MRLs without any supporting data and directing that same company to gather information about international regulatory efforts on methoprene in a manner designed to hide the interest of the tobacco industry in this chemical;
* Attempting to forestall regulatory efforts on tobacco pesticides in the European Community by creating voluntary industry MRLs for a subset of chemicals;
* Hiring an ex-WHO scientist to participate (without disclosing his funding source) in the WHO regulatory effort on EBDCs;
* Hiring several ex-U.S. EPA scientists to influence the U.S. EPAÂ's regulatory decision making on phosphine;
* Hiring scientific consultants with instructions to marshal data to support the tobacco industryÂ's a priori arguments and funding consultants to publish a report supporting these arguments in a journal over which the consultants had influence;
* Staging fumigations for the U.S. EPA with the knowledge that the methodology was flawed and the results would show no emissions problem.
Yet, as the case of European MRLs showed, the tobacco industry does not always work together effectively to influence regulations. . . .
Finally, given the deadly epidemic of tobacco-caused disease, which kills an estimated 5 million people annually worldwide (WHO 2004), is it in the public interest for regulatory agencies today to continue facilitating standards that make it easier and less costly to grow, transport, store, and manufacture tobacco products?
Jump to full article » |