From Michael Shaw at HealthNewsDigest.com, “It’s Time To End The Anti-BPA Hysteria,” covering numerous examples of the bad science, hyped reports, campaigning journalism and fear-mongering on the useful plastics additive, Bisphenol A.

Finally, “hysteria” is the best way to refer to the posture of Consumer Reports on BPA, as presented in the December, 2009 issue. The piece “Concern over canned foods” is rife with errors, but space allows me to mention only two.

Consumer Reports claims that dietary exposure to BPA is close to levels shown to cause harm in animal studies. Yet, the lowest oral exposures to BPA that cause adverse effects in animals are 500,000 times higher than typical human exposure.

Consumer Reports conflates oral ingestion data with animal studies in which BPA was directly injected into the blood, thus bypassing all metabolic pathways. As author Trevor Butterworth reminds us, every regulator and risk assessment in the world has rejected injection studies as a relevant method for assessing human risk from BPA, since our exposure to the chemical is through ingestion. Large, statistically rigorous, multi-generational reproductive toxicity studies have failed to reproduce the findings of injection-based studies.

Indeed, an EPA-funded rodent study recently published in Toxicological Sciences found that low-dose exposures of bisphenol A (BPA) showed no effects on the range of reproductive functions and behavioral activities measured.

See also this summary of a new EPA report from STATS, non-profit, non-partisan Statistical Assessment Service at George Mason University, “New independent study by EPA refutes BPA risk“: “[A] second independent study by the Environmental Protection Agency, published in the leading toxicological journal, Toxicological Sciences, has failed to find evidence of the low-dose hypothesis claimed by environmental activists and widely reported in the media.”

Unfortunately, as former Ohio Treasurer Ken Blackwell has written, a BPA scare can help drum up business, for trial lawyers especially. See “A Chemical Scare Campaign Is Good Business for Some.”

The public would be well served by a high-profile, dispassionate assessment of these issues. We suggest a Senate hearing as venue.

David Michaels, President Obama’s nominee to head the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, has been a prominent promoter of the “BPA is DANGEROUS” school of thought from his position as director of the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy.  A headline on a piece Michaels wrote for The Washington Post on BPA proclaimed, “If Two Similar Studies Completely Disagree, Look at How the Funders Framed the Issue.”

Agreed, SKAPP was formed with money from the trial lawyer industry and is supported by George Soros’ Open Society Institute. And Business Insurance reports, “Surging legal action over BPA targets manufacturers.”

So, yes, a Senate hearing would be a good place to explore the issues surrounding BPA, science and political advocacy as front for the litigation industry. How about at the Senate HELP Committee’s confirmation hearing for Michaels?

Alas, too late. Chairman Tom Harkin pushed through Michaels’ committee approval with no hearing.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has scheduled an executive session Wednesday, Nov. 18, to vote on the nomination of David Michaels to become Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, i.e., OSHA administrator. No hearing, no questioning, just a vote.

Many business groups and others have sought a confirmation hearing on Michaels to explore his views on key issues. For example, Michaels has headed the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP), created with money the trial lawyers funneled to it from the silicone breast implant settlement. SKAPP’s views closely align with those of the plaintiffs’ bar, especially in Michaels’ attack against the Daubert v.Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals that put limits on the introduction of “junk science” into civil suits. (See this 2003 discussion at Overlawyered.com.) Michael’s book, Doubt is Their Product, exudes a world view in which business is always malign and intellectually corrupt.

Defenders of Second Amendment rights have also been alarmed at Michaels’ view of guns as a workplace safety issue warranting strict regulation. See Dave Kopel, “How President Obama’s latest anti-gun appointee—proposed OSHA Director David Michaels—could place sweeping restrictions on your Right to Keep and Bear Arms.”

The National Association of Manufacturers is a member of the Coalition for Workplace Safety, which on October 8 sent a letter to the HELP Committee asking for a hearing. Excerpt:

Because workplace safety is everyone’s concern and we are committed to working with OSHA to meet our shared goal of improving safety in the workplace, we believe a hearing is warranted to thoroughly explore Professor Michael’s views on key areas of OSHA operations, the direction the agency will take, and how his professional career might influence the decisions he would make in this position.

The letter notes that nominees to head OSHA have traditionally appeared before the committee for a confirmation hearing. Indeed, President Bush’s nominee, Ed Foulke, testified in a hearing on January 31, 2006.

It’s been a week since Chairman Tom Harkin’s press secretary offered this excuse for not scheduling a hearing: “If we had a hearing on every single nominee, nothing would ever get done.” We await a more substantive explanation the committee abandoning accountability, but have our doubts one will be forthcoming.

A broad cross-section of industry, farm and retail trade associations yesterday sent a letter to the leaders of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee asking for confirmation hearings on the nomination of David Michaels to head the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Michaels has advocated for more government regulation, even when the available science
and data to support such regulations is inadequate or unsettled. He has also attacked the landmark, unanimous Supreme Court decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, which stands for the proposition that scientific evidence in litigation must meet certain standards to be admitted. Michaels has also been the beneficiary of product liability actions which have been shown to be without merit. Finally, nominees for the OSHA Assistant Secretary have traditionally been subject to a hearing before their confirmations moved forward. We see no reason why Professor Michaels should be an exception. Accordingly, as detailed below, we believe his views warrant a hearing and thorough examination before his nomination can proceed.

The National Association of Manufacturers, which joined the coalition letter, also sent its own letter to the Hill requesting the hearing.

For more on the Michaels’ nomination, see this August 18 Shopfloor.org post.

On July 28, President Obama announced his intent to nominate David Michaels to be Assistant Secretary of Labor, heading the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). As we wrote at a Point of Law post, “Certitude is His Product,” Michaels writings evince his belief that businesses are always bad actors, and the activism of the  Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy he heads aligns closely with the causes of the trial lawyer machine that originally financed the group. For example, SKAPP has campaigned against bisphenol A, or BPA, a safe ingredient in many consumer plastics that the plaintiffs’ bar has worked to demonize and litigate into oblivion — but first big cash settlements.

Walter Olson at Overlawyered.com has now reported Michaels’ views on the Second Amendment, frequently a flashpoint in Senate confirmation hearings: “David Michaels and gun control.”

The controversial OSHA nominee and left-leaning public health advocate also seems to have strong views on firearms issues. That’s by no means irrelevant to the agenda of an agency like OSHA, because once you start viewing private gun ownership as a public health menace, it begins to seem logical to use the powers of government to urge or even require employers to forbid workers from possessing guns on company premises, up to and including parking lots, ostensibly for the protection of co-workers. In addition, OSHA has authority to regulate the working conditions of various job categories associated with firearms use (security guards, hunting guides, etc.) and could in that capacity do much to bring grief to Second Amendment values.

See also…

• Hans Bader, a legal scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, “Obama’s OSHA nominee is anti-gun activist and junk science peddler“
• Iain Murray, at National Review’s The Corner, “OSHA Head Doesn’t Think Anything’s Safe“
• Steven Milloy, JunkScience.com, “Obama OSHA pick supports junk science in courts, regulatory agencies” (Milloy gets credit for being the first to write on Michaels’ after the White House announcement)

Also…

The acting administrator at OSHA is Jordan Barab, formerly a senior policy advisor for the House Education and Labor Committee. Barab previously blogged at Firedoglake, a prominent and vicious leftwing blog where we find him hosting an online chat with David Michaels on June 21, 2008, “FDL Book Salon Welcomes David Michaels: Doubt Is Their Product.”

Here’s how Barab starts the discussion: “I first realized the power — and evil — of the dreaded practitioners of ‘manufactured doubt’ when I was working at OSHA in the late 1990’s on the ergonomics standard.”

By “dreaded practitioners,” Barab means corporations that challenge scientific studies used against them. So corporations are “evil,” in his view.

If Michaels is confirmed, Barab will remain at OSHA as second in command.