Another Reason the FDA Should Be Dismantled and Rebuilt from Scratch

Finally, something that is not about Carter's tagless onesies. Unfortunately, the news is not much better. There is some relatively new information to add to the BPA Files. Thank you to the reader who sent me information on this.

Earlier this month, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel broke news that only underscores the remarkable inefficiency of the FDA and bolsters the case that the people running the agency are caught up in hopeless conflicts of interests, which an eighth-grader would know are untenable.

Martin Philbert, chair of the FDA's panel that recently released preliminary findings that Bisphenol-A is perfectly safe, received an enormous donation to the University of Michigan Risk Science Center, Philbert's own research center. The donation was about twenty-five times the Center's annual budget. The donation came from a retired medical supply manufacturer who is a vocal proponent for the continued use of BPA, including the use of that chemical in baby products.

Philbert did not disclose the donation. He doesn't understand why anyone would want to know about it. He doesn't think it's relevant to the work he is doing on BPA. In fact, the FDA itself learned of the donation from Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reporters who called the agency for comment.

The donor's name is Charles Gelman, "once labeled," the Journal-Sentinel reported, "the second worst polluter in Michigan by the state's Department of Natural Resources." Gelman went on to tell the paper that not only is BPA "safe", but also that "mother's groups and others who don't know the science" are responsible for the nationwide concern. Sexist and patronizing? Yes, but par for the course. One wouldn't expect anything less from Gelman. But what of the more than two hundred independent research papers finding the chemical harmful even at low levels?
He doesn't speak to that.

What is most concerning, is Philbert's response to this disclosure, which came about despite his best efforts. Although Gelman told the paper that he made his views on BPA very clear to Philbert in "several conversations," Philbert denies this. Incidentally, when Philbert was chosen for the panel, environmental groups criticized the pick. Maybe that was because Philbert has absolutely no background nor expertise in BPA.

Obviously the only appropriate action is for Philbert to remove himself from the panel. If he won't do it, he should be removed. Relying on a scientist who has no expertise on the chemical under consideration ought to be enough; but that he accepted a huge donation from a BPA-proponent, did not disclose it, and posed for pictures with the donor when the contribution was made is such a blatant conflict of interest that if the FDA does not move swiftly to correct it, its irrelevance will begin to look a lot like malfeasance.