Erasing public doubt

Tuesday, Oct. 14, 2008 | 2:06 a.m.

The Food and Drug Administration is the federal agency we depend on to ensure the safety of what we eat and what we use for medication. When considering matters of public safety, the FDA should arrive at its decisions without conflicts of interest.

That is why it was disturbing to read in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Sunday that a scientist who heads an FDA panel that is considering the safety of a chemical used to make baby bottles, food containers and plastic wraps failed to disclose a $5 million donation his research center received from an advocate of the chemical.

The scientist, Martin Philbert, is founder and co-director of the University of Michigan Risk Science Center, which received the donation from retired medical supply entrepreneur Charles Gelman. The chemical in question, which Gelman supports, is bisphenol A, which Canada this year proposed classifying as a toxin and banning from baby bottles and other products used by children.

The newspaper reported that several retailers, including Wal-Mart and Toys “R” Us, plan to phase out products containing the chemical, which has been linked to cancer and other diseases in laboratory animals.

What is galling is that the FDA’s associate commissioner of science, Norris Alderson, said there is no conflict of interest because Philbert’s salary is not paid by the donation.

But the Risk Science Center, which studies environmental health risks, has an annual budget of only $210,000. A $5 million donation is a massive infusion of cash that is certain to boost the capabilities of the research center. It stands to reason that Philbert would benefit professionally even if none of the money actually went into his pocket.

Philbert not only failed to disclose the donation in a conflict of interest form filed with the FDA, he also denied Gelman had attempted to influence his scientific judgment on bisphenol A. Gelman, to the contrary, told the newspaper he had made his views clear to Philbert in “several conversations.”

Either way, the FDA should remove Philbert from the committee to erase any doubt the public could have about the agency’s decision regarding future use of the chemical.