Triumph of digital toxicology: why the US won't regulate deadly chemicals

[JohnyCanuck]

Triumph of digital toxicology: why the US won't regulate deadly chemicals
by Valerie Brown and Elizabeth Grossman

The Ecologist
27th November 2015

A six-month investigation finds that the revolving door between government and the chemical industry has led the EPA to rely on easily manipulated toxicology research carried out entirely on computers - and this 'in silico' science often trumps both biology and epidemiology when it comes to regulatory action, or lack of it. The result? Toxic substances remain in everyday products.

snip

"We are drowning our world in untested and unsafe chemicals, and the price we are paying in terms of our reproductive health is of serious concern", wrote the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics in a statement released on October 1.

Yet chemical regulation in the United States has proceeded at a glacial pace. And corporate profit is at the heart of the story.

That the chemical industry exerts political influence is well documented. What our investigation reveals is that, 30 years ago, corporate interests began to control not just the political process but the science itself. Industry not only funds research to cast doubt on known environmental health hazards. It has also shaped an entire field of science-regulatory toxicology - to downplay the risk of toxic chemicals.

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2986383/triumph_of_digital_toxicology_why_the_us_wont_regulate_deadly_chemicals.html

[truedelphi]

1. Bookmarking for later reading. And thank you! n/t

[KT2000]

2. Another reason there should

be universal health care.
Even if everyone quit smoking and lost weight, the industries would still be poisoning us.

[JohnyCanuck]

3. Revolving doors, Monsanto and business as usual

No Matter Who Wins the 2012 Presidential Election Monsanto Benefits
By Josh Sager

Monsanto is a very large business and has control over a significant amount of the agro-business and genetically modified organism markets. Both the agricultural and GMO markets involve large public safety concerns (ex. food safety), thus Monsanto is heavily affected upon federal regulations (or potential regulations) on its business—the largest of which come from the United States Department of Agriculture [USDA] and the Food and Drug Administration. If regulations and labeling requirements are increased, Monsanto’s profits are directly impacted; conversely, if, such regulations are kept low, then corporations like Monsanto make a larger profit.

Due to the vested interest that Monsanto has in controlling regulation that affects its business, it has both donated to politicians and promoted the appointment of people who work for them to positions within the American government. As of yet, Monsanto has been successful in keeping its regulatory burdens low and getting its representatives into positions within the US government. The infiltration of regulatory agencies by corporate actors that is referred to here is called the “regulatory revolving door”. Individuals who work for industry go to work for the government, make public regulations, and then return to the private sector after leaving the public service. The following info-graphic gives a few examples of the revolving door between Monsanto and the United States government:


All Credit for this Venn diagram goes to Geke.us

While there are numerous points of overlap between Monsanto and the United States Government under the Obama administration, the three most important connections are that of Michael Taylor, Roger, Beachy, and Islam Siddiqui—all three of these Monsanto affiliates were appointed to high level positions within the government by the Obama administration.

http://theprogressivecynic.com/2012/11/05/no-matter-who-wins-the-2012-presidential-election-monsanto-benefits/