AC”S””H” and the Information Quality Act

For years public health advocates have struggled with the new EPA carcinogen guidelines in draft form. Basically, the guidelines flung open the door to Houdini Risk Assessments based on “mechanism.” The guidelines also introduce a new set of terms and definitions for levels of evidence divergent from NTP [statutory], IARC [customary], OSHA [regulatory], ACGIH [obscure].

Now comes the premier “money tox” organization, the American Council on “Science” and “Health.” The AC”S””H” has petitioned in terms of the Information Quality Act to overturn these guidelines.

BrooklynDodger thinks the response needs two prongs. First, figuring out where these IQA appeals go, and who decides them. Second, approaching those associated with the AC”S””H” who pretend to scientific qualifications, such as the Board of Directors members who aren’t lobbyists, and the Scientific Advisors. The issue with these folks is whether the petition itself was peer reviewed within the terms of the IQA.

If you recognize any of the names below, you might email them with the question.

ACSH Petitions EPA to Stop Declaring Chemicals "Carcinogens" Based on Rodent Tests Alone


PRESS RELEASE Publication Date: August 23, 2005
New York, NY -- August 23, 2005. The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) today petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to eliminate "junk science" from the process by which it determines whether a substance is likely to cause cancer in humans.
The petition, filed on behalf of ACSH by the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF), a public interest law firm, argues that current EPA guidelines violate the Information Quality Act (IQA) -- the law that requires the federal government to ensure the "equality, objectivity, utility, and integrity" of information it dispenses to the public.

Board of Directors:

http://www.acsh.org/about/pageID.7/default.asp

Scientific Advisors:

http://www.acsh.org/about/pageID.89/default.asp