Posted on 01/31/2006 3:13:13 PM PST by presidio9
A chemical used in the manufacture of Teflon and other nonstick and stain-resistant products should be considered a "likely" carcinogen, according to an independent scientific review panel advising the Environmental Protection Agency.
The recommendation included in the panel's final draft report is consistent with its preliminary finding, which went beyond the EPA's own determination that there was only "suggestive evidence" from animal studies that perfluorooctanoic acid and its salts are potential human carcinogens.
"The predominant panel view was that the descriptor 'likely to be carcinogenic' was more consistent with currently available data, while a few panel members reached the conclusion that the current evidence fails to exceed the descriptor 'suggestive,' of carcinogenicity," the panel said in a draft report released Monday.
Officials with Wilmington, Del.-based DuPont Co., the sole North American producer of PFOA, took issue with the panel's conclusions.
"We disagree with the panel's recommendation on the cancer classification, and we continue to support the EPA's draft risk assessment," said Robert Rickard, director of health and environmental sciences for DuPont.
"This reflects recommended classification; what's more important is risk, and we are confident that PFOA does not pose a cancer risk to the general public," added Rickard, who said the carcinogenicity classification was based on animal data and does not reflect data from human studies.
PFOA is a processing aid used in the manufacturing of fluoropolymers, which have a wide variety of product applications, including nonstick cookware. The chemical also can be a byproduct in the manufacturing of fluorotelomers used in surface protection products for applications such as stain-resistant textiles and grease-resistant food wrapping.
Besides disagreeing with the EPA on the potential carcinogenicity of PFOA, also known as C-8, a majority of members on the review panel also recommended that the EPA's risk assessment include additional data on PFOA's potential to cause liver, testicular, pancreatic and breast cancers. A majority of panel members also recommended that the chemical's effects on hormones and on the nervous and immune systems be included in the risk assessment, and that studies should not be limited by age, gender or species in assessing human risk.
The findings of the panel, which was established by the EPA's Science Advisory Board, will be reviewed by SAB officials in a Feb. 15 teleconference.
"The real outcome of this is the panel going back and saying `You've got to include this extra stuff here; it wasn't really a rigorous analysis," said Tim Kropp, senior scientist for the Environmental Working Group, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit organization whose work has prompted increased government scrutiny of PFOA.
While the EPA is free to accept or reject the panel's recommendations, Kropp said it rare for the EPA to dismiss an advisory board's advice.
"They've asked them to do a more rigorous analysis, to do a more scientific method of determining risk, and you can't argue with that," he said. "That's just good science."
EPA officials declined to say how the agency might respond to the report.
"It's sort of what we expected," said EPA deputy administrator Marcus Peacock, adding that he had not read the full report. "There's more we don't know here than what we do know."
Susan Hazen, EPA's acting assistant administrator for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, said much of the work aimed at better understanding PFOA already is underway.
Hazen and Peacock also pointed to an EPA initiative announced last week asking DuPont and seven other companies that manufacture or use PFOA, its precursors, and similar compounds to reduce environmental releases and levels of those chemicals in products by 95 percent no later than 2010, using the year 2000 as a baseline.
The EPA also wants the industry to work toward the elimination of PFOA and related chemicals from emissions and products by no later than 2015.
___
Not this Trial Lawyers' Fantasy again!
"Junk Science for the benefit of the Trial Sheisters" bump
I am still annoyed that air conditioners aren't worth a c^&* anymore.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1565852/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1530547/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1501251/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1491421/posts
(all variations of the same schtick stick)
All this for something that is simply used in the manufacture of an item, and is NOT IN THE ACTUAL ITEM.
Notice that this is not about Teflon itself, but a chemical that is involved in the manufacturing of Teflon. It's like implying that gold might be poisonous because a chemical used in gold ore extraction, for instance mercury, is poisonous.
Another bogus study
I have heard that if you put a teflon pan on the stove and really overheat it, to the point that it is burning up, it will release enough toxic crap to kill birds you may have in your house. Any truth to this or is it an urban legend??
Drat, I wish you had told me sooner.
Let me guess, the panel was composed of a greenpeace member, a ALF member and a ELF member.
Well then, by all means we should shoot first and ask questions later.
I thought the Teflon cancer connection had already been debunked by scientific analysis. I have to wonder if the advisory board is stacked with environmental extremists.
will they ban teflon from restaurants and bars---teflon free ?
and increase the tax on each utensil ?
all while keeping it a "legal" substance ?
Teflon was invented during investigation into possible refrigerants. It was developed puposely but not for the purposes for which it ended up being used.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.