Scientists who attack new chemical regulations almost always have financial ties to pharma or chemical companies

Wednesday, October 23, 2013 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
Tags: scientists, chemical regulations, financial ties

eTrust Pro Certified

Most Viewed Articles
Popular on Facebook
BACK INTO THE CLOSET: Why U.S. reporters are not allowed to write about rainbow events in nations where being gay is still condemned
Depopulation test run? 75% of children who received vaccines in Mexican town now dead or hospitalized
A family destroyed: Six-month-old dies after clinic injects baby with 13 vaccines at once without mother's informed consent
INVESTIGATION: Three days before Dr. Bradstreet was found dead in a river, U.S. govt. agents raided his research facility to seize a breakthrough cancer treatment called GcMAF
BAM! Chipotle goes 100% non-GMO; flatly rejecting the biotech industry and its toxic food ingredients
BOMBSHELL: China and America already at war: Tianjin explosion carried out by Pentagon space weapon in retaliation for Yuan currency devaluation... Military helicopters now patrolling Beijing
ECONOMIC SLAVERY FOR ALL: While we were distracted with the Confederate flag flap, Congress quietly forfeited our entire economic future via fast-track trade authority
March Against Monsanto explodes globally... World citizens stage massive protests across 38 countries, 428 cities... mainstream media pretends it never happened
GMO crops totally banned in Russia... powerful nation blocks Monsanto's agricultural imperialism and mass poisoning of the population
SCOTUS same-sex marriage decision may have just legalized the concealed carry of loaded firearms across all 50 states, nullifying gun laws everywhere
Nearly every mass shooting in the last 20 years shares one surprising thing? and it's not guns
Vicious attack on Dr. Oz actually waged by biotech mafia; plot to destroy Oz launched after episode on glyphosate toxicity went viral
Holistic cancer treatment pioneer Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez dies suddenly; patients mourn the loss of a compassionate, innovative doctor who helped thousands heal from cancer
Pepsi drops aspartame from diet soda as consumers reject toxic sweetener
Bride of Frankenfood: Hillary Clinton pushes GMO agenda... hires Monsanto lobbyist... takes huge dollars from Monsanto
STATINS RED ALERT: Widely prescribed drugs act as cellular poisons that accelerate aging... deactivate DNA repair... promote diabetes, muscle fatigue and memory loss
Wild eyes and bowl cuts: Why do mass shooters always share the same hair styles and crazed zombie stares?
Mind control through emotional domination: How we're all being manipulated by the "crisis of the NOW"
(NaturalNews) If you think legitimate science, and not special interests, is what dictates the regulatory process for new chemicals, you might want to think again. A recent investigation by Environmental Health News (EHN) into a controversial, yet highly cited, journal editorial that decries increased regulations for endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) like bisphenol-A (BPA) has revealed that every single editor and scientist who signed onto the paper, with the exception of one, has ties to the pharmaceutical or chemical industries.

The paper in question, entitled "Scientifically unfounded precaution drives European Commission's recommendations on EDC regulation, while defying common sense, well-established science and risk assessment principles," was first published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology back in July. And like its name implies, the purpose of this editorial was to chastise recent proposals made by the European Commission to establish an improved regulatory framework for EDCs.

Not long after the paper's original publishing, a scientific civil war broke out in which scientists supportive of the continued unregulated use of EDCs were met by strong opposition from scientists opposed to the racket. According to EHN, a back-and-forth argument over the safety of EDCs, the science behind their use, and many other facets of the issue quickly gained national limelight, with the journal Nature keeping close tabs on the issue.

But up until this point, nobody had looked into the possible motivations behind the publishing of the original editorial, mainly why its authors are so vehemently opposed to EDC regulation in light of science that shows their dangers -- that is, until EHN decided to take a closer look. What this group found, which may not come as much of a surprise to NaturalNews readers, is that 17 of the 18 authors of the original editorial have financial ties to the chemical or pharmaceutical industries.

"An investigation by Environmental Health News reveals that of 18 toxicology journal editors who signed a controversial editorial, 17 have collaborated with the chemical, pharmaceutical, cosmetic, tobacco, pesticide or biotechnology industries," write Stephane Horel and Brian Bienkowski for EHN. "Some have received research funds from industry associations, while some have served as industry consultants or advisors."

94 percent of editorial authors have financial or other stakes in keeping EDCs unregulated

Among these is Daniel R. Dietrich, a toxicologist from the University of Konstanz in Germany, who is regarded as the editorial's lead author. According to EHN, Dietrich is a former advisor for the European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC), an industry association funded by a cohort of chemical, pesticide and oil companies. ECETOC actively and directly lobbies the European Commission in favor of EDCs.

Another chemical industry advocate who helped author the editorial against improved EDC regulations is Bas Blaauboer, editor of the journal Toxicology in Vitro. According to EHN, Blaauboer, who now works as a toxicology professor at Utrecht University in the Netherlands, accepted more than a half million dollars from the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), a pro-EDC lobbying group, between April 2008 and March 2010.

"The problematic affiliations range from slight (patents with the drug company Merck, which produces BPA) to the major (significant research funding from pharmaceutical companies, affiliations with the European Chemical Industry Council)," writes Alexis Sobel Fitts for the Columbia Journalism Review about the various conflicts of interest with the authors of the original editorial opposing improved EDC regulations.

In their defense, Dietrich et al. insist that their industry ties played no role in the publishing of their article and that this argument is irrelevant to the issue at hand. But the hundreds of scientists and journals that have since come out to expose it disagree, noting that its publishing was timed perfectly with the imminent European Commission proposal, which would have "sweeping, global ramifications because all companies that sell a variety of products in Europe would have to comply."

Sources for this article include:

Follow real-time breaking news headlines on
Scientists at
Join over four million monthly readers. Your privacy is protected. Unsubscribe at any time.
comments powered by Disqus
Take Action: Support by linking back to this article from your website

Permalink to this article:

Embed article link: (copy HTML code below):

Reprinting this article:
Non-commercial use OK, cite with clickable link.

Follow Natural News on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, and Pinterest

Colloidal Silver

Advertise with NaturalNews...

Support NaturalNews Sponsors:

Advertise with NaturalNews...


Sign up for the FREE Natural News Email Newsletter

Receive breaking news on GMOs, vaccines, fluoride, radiation protection, natural cures, food safety alerts and interviews with the world's top experts on natural health and more.

Join over 7 million monthly readers of, the internet's No. 1 natural health news site. (Source:

Your email address *

Please enter the code you see above*

No Thanks

Already have it and love it!

Natural News supports and helps fund these organizations:

* Required. Once you click submit, we will send you an email asking you to confirm your free registration. Your privacy is assured and your information is kept confidential. You may unsubscribe at anytime.