Excuse me if I an NOT "politically correct" while an agency that was originally, supposedly set up to help us is openly and once again, bribed. Is there a thinking person out there that can NOT read between lies in lines of this blatant bull crap that leads from "gift" to "it's all good", "Move along, nothing to see here"? So, do you think the adage; "The fox is guarding the hen house", came from something a LITTLE LIKE THIS?
"Gift" to Center Headed by FDA Panel Chairman Raises Questions
Monday, October 13, 2008; Page A11
Bracket notes, italics and bold added to print by Patrick Wood
A retired medical supply manufacturer [there is a Big "Red Flag"] who considers bisphenol A to be "perfectly safe" gave $5 million to the research center headed by the chairman of a Food and Drug Administration panel [there is another Big Red Flag] about to rule on the chemical's safety.
The July donation from Charles Gelman is nearly 50 times the annual budget [there is another Big Red Flag] of the University of Michigan Risk Science Center, where Martin Philbert is founder and co-director. Philbert did not disclose the donation to the FDA [there is another Big Red Flag], and agency officials learned of it when reporters asked about it.
Norris Alderson, the FDA's associate commissioner for science, looked into the matter and said he was satisfied that there was no conflict of interest because Philbert's salary is not paid by the donation.
[It should be noted however, that the supply manufacturer's "salary" (who gave the FDA this bribe) IS DIRECTLY effected by the FDA's "rulings"]
Gelman said he considers the chemical [BPA: his manufacturing company uses,.. Red Flag], which is used to make baby bottles and aluminum can liners, to be safe. Worries about health risks posed by the chemical are exaggerated by "mothers' groups and others who don't know the science," Gelman said. [what a surprise... name calling of people who "don't know the science", but DO know more than something about health]
He said he had made his views clear to Philbert in several conversations. [This is where it gets real...]
Philbert denied that. [I wonder WHY?... nervous about some money and "appearance of impropriety" and informative reputation, perhaps?]
"At no time have the Gelman family or any other interested/disinterested person, persons, corporations or other entity contacted me or attempted to influence my scientific judgment on the matter," Philbert wrote in an e-mail. [$5 million ("50 times the annual budget") is no INFLUENCE?!]
Philbert's committee is expected to release its opinion this month. It will advise the FDA on a draft assessment released by the agency in September. That draft found that products made with bisphenol A are safe for food storage. [HELLO? Are you with this picture yet? There is a huge red flag]
The decision of Philbert's committee is expected to have huge implications on the regulation and sale of the chemical in items such as baby bottles, reusable food containers and plastic wraps.
Since the late 1990s, studies have linked bisphenol A to cancer, heart disease, obesity, reproductive failures and hyperactivity in laboratory animals.
Gelman, a retired manufacturer of syringes and medical filtration devices, has fought against government regulation of pollutants for years.
[Hello, What a surprise......]
He is an anti-regulation activist and an outspoken supporter of organizations such as JunkScience.com, the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute that attack the credibility of government and academic scientists on such topics as global warming and hazardous chemicals. [Unless it effects his company...]
Gelman said he and Philbert talk often. He said Philbert eventually told him that he did not want to have any more discussions on the subject of bisphenol A because he was concerned about the appearance of impropriety. But, Gelman said, "He knows where I stand."
Philbert steadfastly denied any conflict of interest. [AGAIN, I wonder WHY?... nervous about some money and "appearance of impropriety" and informative reputation, perhaps?]
"Until today, no question has been raised with respect to my impartiality in this matter," he wrote in an e-mail. "I am not open to any undue influence and have taken on this (unwelcome) task with all due diligence and seriousness." [AND of course, a $5 MILLION "gift"]