Customer Reviews

Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

If we believe David Michaels, industry charlatans all learned from the tobacco industry 50 years ago. The industries that rely on doubt have been blossoming ever since: beryllium (did you know that there was a beryllium industry? I did not), asbestos, and popcorn, among others.

Yes, popcorn. Were you aware that there is a condition called "popcorn lung" (officially bronchiolitis obliterans)? I was not. It's called that because one of the main ways to contract it is by working in a factory that manufactures one of the ingredients -- namely diacetyl -- for the butter flavoring in popcorn. Every time you open a steaming bag of butter-flavored microwave popcorn, you are inhaling a bit of this chemical. The more of it you eat, the more likely you are to contract a devastating lung ailment. (And this isn't the sort of disease that you'd only get by eating an implausibly large quantity of popcorn. Real popcorn consumers have actually acquired it.)

The agency responsible for protecting workers from this sort of hazard is OSHA. The one responsible for protecting food consumers is the FDA. This division of labor comes in for some well-deserved scorn in Doubt Is Their Product; it has left the government fairly impotent to respond to threats against the public health. This book could be read alongside Marion Nestle's Food Politics and What To Eat as a single thread about the assault on helpful government regulation.

In their nonstop fight against that sort of regulation, companies have pulled out all the stops to inject systematic doubt into the public discussion. The most pernicious of these, it seems to me, is the creation of sham peer-reviewed journals. Peer review is a negative process: if you can't pass peer review, your ideas are unlikely to have merit (though there are cases, says Michaels, where brilliant scientists -- future Nobelists -- have been denied peer approval). Passing peer review doesn't mean that your ideas are any good. Something similar applies to the references you give a potential employer: if you can't find anyone in the world to say something nice about you, that is a warning sign. If three people will say good things about you, that doesn't mean that you're going to be a good employee. The public doesn't understand this distinction, and doesn't know which journals have any respect within the field. So regulated industries have dutifully gone and created journals that will say whatever they're paid to say -- just as the creationists have done. The news reports then compile, say, a "list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" as though scientific consensus were decided by majority vote among equals.

If there's the slightest bit of doubt about, say, the cause of a disease, industry pounces and insists that more research is necessary. More research will always be necessary: science never attains the truth, only better and better approximations to the truth. The situation is complicated in public health by scientists' inability to conduct controlled experiments: it is immoral to subject patients to a potentially crippling disease. So scientists are forced to make educated guesses: this population -- of popcorn-factory workers, say -- has probably been subjected to thus-and-such a daily dosage of diacetyl for thus-and-so many years, whereas this other group of workers in the same factory has had less exposure. Meanwhile, people living near the factory but not working in it almost never experience popcorn lung. Hence we make the educated guess that the additional cases of bronchiolitis obliterans are due to diacetyl exposure within the factory.

Having reached a tentative conclusion about what's making people sick, we have some options. We can mandate that factories use a different chemical. Does industry have other, safer alternatives? Presumably it does, but those alternatives are more expensive; otherwise it would already be using them. If industry were forced to use safer alternatives, would economies of scale drive the price down to the point that consumers wouldn't notice?

That approach seems ethically sterile to me. It seems better to start with the assumption that no one should get sick at work. Being ethical about this means, in many cases, taking Paul Farmer's "preferential option for the poor" seriously. You'd probably find that most people getting sick at work are not wealthy; hedge-fund managers and computer scientists aren't coming into daily contact with beryllium; even if they are, wealthier folks can insist on workplace-safety measures in a way that the poor cannot. I'd wager that workplace safety is another front in the fight for distributive justice.

Michaels is a former Department of Energy official whose work centered on the safety of nuclear plants. As such, he has a somewhat reflexive faith in the power of regulation. To me it rang hollow: one regulation will limit diacetyl, another will limit beryllium, another will prevent factory workers from acquiring repetitive-strain disorders -- but will any real problems be solved? Companies' desire and ability to game the system is virtually limitless. When they lose the regulatory war, they invent a public-relations campaign to convince Americans that tort reform is necessary. They demonize "trial lawyers" (lawyers who write briefs and stay out of the courtroom are off the hook, as are lawyers who resolve cases before they reach the court). They challenge the very epistemology of the scientific revolution. If worse comes to worst, they move production of noxious chemicals to countries with lower environmental and health standards.

What I'm getting at is that we have a much more systemic problem on our hands. I applaud regulation where it helps, but I do wonder if it's tinkering at the edges of a massive problem that lies at the heart of our society. We need regulation; we also need education to explain to Americans what science is. We need Americans to believe that we owe much to the least fortunate among us. Until that message gets through, we'll have to content ourselves with putting out little brushfires while the forest burns.

Conflicts of interest among members of EPA review panels have weakened governmental safety standards on toxic chemicals in the environment and in everyday consumer products. Outrage over long-standing reliance on "science for hire" by the chemical industry has prompted Congress to investigate EPA's procedures for reviewing toxic chemicals, including PBDE flame retardants and bisphenol A. These examples are just a small window into how great the tampering and influence of the chemical industry has been over EPA regulation of toxic chemicals. A new book by David Michaels, an epidemiologist and the director of the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy at The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, documents a seemingly endless list of examples of mercenary scientists misleading the general public and the regulatory community about the true dangers of chemical exposures, starting from lead, asbestos, and tobacco, and continuing to chromium, berillium, perchlorate, benzene, plastics chemicals, and various other environmental and occupational health hazards.

The book is a must-read for anyone who cares about the best application of science in the interests of promoting public health. For a great review, readers can also go to the article by Newsweek's Sharon Begley, "Whitewashing Toxic Chemicals."

One stunning quote from the book describes the tricks of the trade that industry lobby and product defense firms use to derail the regulatory process: "They profit by helping corporations minimize public health and environmental protection and fight claims of injury and illness. In field after field, year after year, this same handful of individuals and companies comes up again and again... They have on their payrolls (or can bring in on a moment's notice) toxicologists, epidemiologists, biostatisticians, risk assessors, and any other professionally trained, media-savvy experts deemed necessary. They and the larger, wealthier industries for which they work go through the motions we expect of the scientific enterprise, salting the literature with their questionable reports and studies. Nevertheless, it is all a charade. The work has one overriding motivation: advocacy for the sponsor's position in civil court, the court of public opinion, and the regulatory arena [where these studies benefit their sponsors] not because they are good work that the regulatory agencies have to take seriously but because they clog the machinery and slow down the process. Public health interests are beside the point. Follow the science wherever it leads? Not quite. This is science for hire, period, and it is extremely lucrative."

Only by discovering the facts behind the scene and by bringing to light the true motivation of profit-driven public relations campaigns can we promote and defend the health of the environment and the safety of consumer products. For a veteran in the subject who may have participated in some of the struggles described in Defending Science, or for a new member of the environmental and occupational health community, this book is a great introduction to the state of the field - and the battles ahead that still need to be fought.

Do we ever really know anything for certain? And if not, how can we move forward and protect the public health? This important book chronicles how the industry "manufactures uncertainty" about the dangers of their products, delaying or killing new regulations, and how the health of workers, the public and the environment suffer as a result. This "product defense industry" has grown very sophisticated and is well funded. Michaels offers numerous solutions in the final chapters to reset the Nation's regulatory apparatus and keep it from listing more and more towards protecting industry's profits rather then health. This book will make you angry, but it will also motivate you. The hope is that a new Administration will put us on a path towards a fairer and safer world.

This book is an examination of campaigns by industry to thwart attempts of government, especially the United States government, to protect the health of workers and citizens. Michaels has had a long history in public health working in both the public and academic sectors. In this book, he traces the history of numerous cases of industries that have escaped safety regulations and the dire consequences of their actions.

Michaels observes that industries trying to escape regulation commonly do so by raising the flag of uncertainty. That is, they take advantage of the fact that it is logically impossible to prove an effect conclusively, but rather, all science can do is provide evidence that strongly suggests connections between cause and effect. This has allowed the tobacco industry to fight and delay warnings about the health risks of tobacco smoking. It also has also slowed down response to the climate change crisis, as contributing industries claim we must wait for more evidence before we take any action. He notes that industry often manages to establish doubt concerning the findings of scientific research through media reports that cite conflicting opinions on the topic. However, these media reports do not look into the sources and funding of the conflicting opinions; they contrast volumes of evidence found by independent and publicly funded research with "research" funded by industry or created by industry think tanks.

The text of the book is extremely dense, with extensive references cited in endnotes. Michaels does an admirable job of explaining how the efforts of industry to undermine sound science are made to sound credible, through trade supported "peer-reviewed" journals and think tanks. He argues that because industries have been so successful at evading regulation, litigation is often the only recourse in the present system, and thus, the ability of citizens to seek damages in the courts for injuries must be protected against the industry-led campaign for "tort reform". The book provides valuable information for those seeking a deeper understanding of the extent of the control industry has managed to wrest from the government and other agencies that are supposed to be looking out for public health. On disinformation provided by industry and the conservative politicians owned by them, Michaels quotes Lily Tomlin "No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up."

"Doubt is their product" by David Michaelis, is one of those rare books you really try hard to convince people to read, and if they don't want to buy it - you give them the book. I'm working as an occupational hygienist in a Norwegian labor union. The book has been a tremendous help to understand how the product defence system works and how they are selling doubt. To me the book is the most important book I've read for a long time. The book should be required reading for all professionals and students within the environment, healt and safety domain.

David Michaels has traveled the honorable path of scientific muckracking, peeling back the lies and distortions that have killed millions in the U.S. for the greater good of shareholder profit. The great improvement of his book, "Doubt is their Product," is that it also lines out a series of concrete solutions with proven examples of ways that agencies can retake the high ground.

This book has an important inspirational component and a get-to-work component that activists can use to make the workplace and environment safer. Michaels counsels us on practical means such as ending court sanctioned secrecy, allowing injured workers to sue their employees, develop better compensation systems, and ending pre-emption that harms public policy and public health.

The book includes a crucial chapter on concrete ways to improve the regulatory system so that it protects the majority rather than serving as a shield, flack, and apologist for corporate profits.

This is a must read for any law school course on administrative law, and for any college course on modern government. Its discussion of the asbestos industry--creator of the global mesothelioma scourge--is particularly apropos. Best of all, the book is well written, thoroughly researched, and righteous while being coolly objective.

I agree with others that this is dense and long, but I think it is well worth reading, even if you skip parts of chapters.

I would especially suggest study of:
Chapter 13: Daubert: the Most Influential Supreme Court Ruling You've Never Heard Of
Chapter 14: The Institutionalization of Uncertainty
[The Data Access Act (Shelby) and the Data Quality Act]

Because:
a) The behaviors of some corporations, PR agencies, product defense organizations can get somewhat redundant. Hill & Knowlton created the tactics 50+ years ago and they've been widely employed.

b) But the legal issues in these two Chapters represent relatively recent changes in the law with profound effects. They (especially the Data Access Act) are now widely being used to harass climate scientists, for example.

The power of the media, harnessed to the desire to continue producing/selling/using dangerous materials has produced a consistent pattern: attack the science. But, since for a wide range of such dangerous materials the scientific evidence is substantial and generally convincing, this can be a hard task. The solution: emphasize the uncertainties, reanalyze the data, and counsel waiting for certainty.

A former federal health and safety official with direct experience in dealing with these issues, Michaels provides a heavily annotated, passionate description of how the same PR and legal firms who helped the tobacco industry for years have also guided the use of this strategy for dozens of other health and environmental issues, up to and including the global climate change debate. By sowing doubt and insisting on "sound science" they have extended the life cycle of dangerous practices and exposed workers and consumers to disease and death.

The book is full of detailed history, but Michaels is interested in making progress. After telling the (limited) success of the Department of Energy turnaround in compensated nuclear energy workers, he tells of the difficulties of the last decade and sketches 12 important initiatives for the new Administration, Congress, and the courts to finally come to grips with these important problems. Without change in these areas, as consumers and employees can expect the same song, second verse, for the indefinite future.

Michaels shows that the same techniques used to successfully delay legislation and regulatory action on cigarettes have since been used on any number of other public-health problems, including today's major global warming concerns. A growing trend disingenuously demands proof over precaution, always disputing conclusions that might support regulation because industry has learned that debating the science is much easier and more effective than debating the policy. It also avoids being simply branded as 'anti-environmental,' etc.

Michaels material shows instances proving the hazards of working with some chemicals was well known long before lawsuits arose. For example, as early as 1918 life insurers declined asbestos workers. Certain dye components were found to cause 100% of bladder cancer in the original DuPont workers back in 1947 - again, before major suits. Reducing lead in paint and gasoline was accomplished relatively easily, despite industry efforts - thanks mainly to the EPA and the effect lead had on catalytic converters, adding auto-makers to those demanding lead's elimination from gasoline.

Industry obstructionists (often led by the public relations firm Hill and Knowlton) repeatedly use a strategy of insisting on proof - hard to accomplish because one rarely finds 100% affliction from toxins, even cigarette smoke. The author instead recommends a 'Sarbanes-Oxley' approach to science and toxins. 1)Require full disclosure of any sponsor involvement in scientific studies. 2)Manufacturers must disclose what they know regarding the toxicity of their products and the chemicals used. 3)Rigged data reanalysis should be stopped - creates false findings. 4)Hold people accountable. 5)Protect the independence of federal scientists and science advisory committees - eg. stop asking applicants who they voted for, using panel members with conflicts of interest. 6)Embrace 'as low as reasonably achievable' standards instead of becoming embroiled in endless debates over safe levels.

Bottom Line: "Doubt Is their Product" provides good documentation of industry's non-stop reactionary foot-dragging to any profit impediment vs. public health. However, that scientists can be bought ('fake science') is hardly news to anyone who has followed the global warming debate. Thus, Michaels should have made his book considerably shorter.

"Doubt is Their Product" is a well researched and scholarly book. It is also tells a very sad story. The government we trust to keep us safe has put the foxes in charge of the henhouses. OSHA, for example, has been so intimidated that it has quit trying to protect us. The nuclear weapons industry has contaminated the countryside and used security as an excuse to hide the fact. The FDA has little to no funding to protect us from drugs with serious side effects. If you vote, you must read this book. If you work near chemicals, you would be an idiot not to read it.
Ralph Hermansen 02/28/09