Submitted by Diane Farsetta on
"This was a 10-year campaign to shape the science to fit the industry's agenda rather than shape the regulation to fit the science," Professor David Michaels said of industry attempts to avoid lower exposure limits for hexavalent chromium. In 2004, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposed reducing the exposure limit set in 1943 more than fifty-fold.
Submitted by Bob Burton on
In a April 2003 pitch to DuPont, The Weinberg Group proposed a strategy to help defuse the growing controversy over the health impacts of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a compound used to make Teflon.
Submitted by Bob Burton on
In late January a comedian hosting the UK Pharmaceutical Marketing Society's Annual Advertising Awards ceremony joked that "twenty years ago it was all lap dancing and champagne for the doctors. These days you're lucky if you can give them a three-star hotel and a f***ing biro." Not so, it seems.
Submitted by Diane Farsetta on
Submitted by Diane Farsetta on
The U.S.
As the Center for Media and Democracy has noted, the tobacco industry pioneered many deceptive public relations tactics, casting a long shadow over science and health reporting, as well as the public's right to know.
Before its fall from grace, tobacco industry created front groups courted journalists and obscured damning scientific evidence. But, inadvertently, the industry is now helping independent researchers and reporters understand how PR is used to obscure facts and shape public debates.
Submitted by Diane Farsetta on
The United Nations' World Health Organization (WHO) barred the U.S.-based International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) from taking part in "WHO activities setting microbiological or chemical standards for food and water." The decision followed warnings from health, environmental and union groups, including the
Submitted by Diane Farsetta on
Submitted by Diane Farsetta on
If you have concerns about the development of nanotechnology, you might want to keep an eye on the 'partnership' between the chemical industry giant DuPont and Environmental Defense (ED), the New York-based environmental group.
The project, according to a joint media release issued in October 2005 by ED's Fred Krupp and DuPont's Chad Halliday, is to "identify, manage and reduce potential health, safety and environmental risks of nano-scale materials across all lifecycle stages." Once developed, the framework will "then be pilot-tested on specific nano-scale materials or applications of commercial interest to DuPont."
To be fair, ED has flagged concerns about there being inadequate health and environmental assessments of nanotechnologies to date. However, ED hasn't mentioned publicly what they think about DuPont and other companies having products that are already on the market without such assessments.
Center for Media and Democracy (CMD)
520 University Ave, Ste 305 • Madison, WI 53703 • (608) 260-9713
CMD is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt non-profit.
© 1993-2024