American Council on Science and
Health
Brief in Formaldehyde Suit Financed by Chemical Manufacturer
HOWARD KURTZ / Washington Post 3jun1984
[More on ACSH]
In 1982, the American Council on Science and Health ( ACSH ) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a Formaldehyde Institute lawsuit that overturned a federal ban on formaldehyde insulation.
The council, which frequently issues reports on chemicals, said in the 45-page brief that it was entering the case as "a nonprofit national consumer education association."
But the brief was paid for by Georgia-Pacific Co., one of the leading manufacturers and users of formaldehyde and a member of the Formaldehyde Institute.
The document, filed with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, contained no mention of the financial role of Georgia-Pacific, one of many wood products companies that use formaldehyde as a binding agent.
A senior executive at Georgia-Pacific confirmed that the company originally agreed to make a donation to ACSH that would cover the council's legal fees for the brief. He said the company eventually paid the $40,000 in fees directly to Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, a Washington law firm that had represented both Georgia-Pacific and the Formaldehyde Institute.
It is not unusual for corporations to hire lawyers, lobbyists, publicists and scientists to help persuade the public of the safety of their products or the wisdom of their policies. The Washington telephone directory is filled with councils and associations that are funded by business and conservative groups or by unions and liberal groups.
But ACSH has stressed its independence from the food, chemical and drug companies that provide some of its funding. In six years, ACSH has become perhaps the most prominent national group to defend controversial chemicals. Its reports receive widespread media coverage, its health program is carried on 125 radio stations and its spokesmen frequently appear on national television.
ACSH executive director Elizabeth M. Whelan said the council tries to combat "misinformation in the media that overstates risks and alarms people . . . . The perception among our enemies is that we're speaking for industry. But we call it as we see it. The funding has nothing to do with it."
The council has argued that there is no evidence that 2,4,5-T, an ingredient in the Vietnam war defoliant Agent Orange, causes birth defects; that the artificial sweetener saccharin is safe and does not cause cancer, and that there is no proven link between heart disease and a diet high in cholesterol and fat. Also, last week the council called for postponing a federal ban on the pesticide ethylene dibromide (EDB) in grain and fruit.
At least a third of ACSH 's funding comes from such companies as Allied Corp., Coca-Cola, the National Soft Drink Association, Colgate-Palmolive Co., Dow Chemical Canada, du Pont, Eli Lilly, Exxon, General Mills, General Foods Fund, Gulf Oil, Hershey Foods, Johnson & Johnson, Kellogg's, Monsanto Fund, Mobil Foundation, M&M/Mars, Pillsbury Foundation, Procter & Gamble, Pfizer, Shell Oil, Upjohn and Velsicol Chemical.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which last year overturned the Consumer Product Safety Commission's formaldehyde ban because of insufficient evidence, cited the ACSH brief in its decision. The brief, in turn, listed some of Georgia-Pacific's arguments in footnotes.
C.T. (Kip) Howlett, Georgia-Pacific's director of government affairs, said he had asked Whelan's group to file the brief. "We said we'd be willing to pay for the brief through a contribution," Howlett said. He said the council "came back and asked that we just pay the fee directly . . . . The bill for the law firm was paid by us."
Howlett said he saw no reason for the brief to mention Georgia-Pacific's funding. "It's not a material fact," he said.
Whelan said she "figured" that Georgia-Pacific or the Formaldehyde Institute had paid for the brief, which she said was based on the council's earlier report on formaldehyde. But she said that she did not expect Georgia-Pacific to make the $40,000 donation directly to ACSH and that she sent back the check. Howlett said the money then was paid directly to the law firm instead.
"We don't care who pays the bill because it doesn't influence us," Whelan said. " . . . We didn't have the money to be paying a law firm. It was a matter of repackaging {our report} for the legal process. This was a case of an industry under duress using material we had already published and using it to their advantage . . . . I don't see that as any problem whatsoever."
Jeffrey O. Cerar, the partner at Squire, Sanders and Dempsey who wrote the brief, said he saw no reason to tell the court who paid for the brief. "If you have a client and you file a brief that represents their opinions, there's no particular need to look into where they get the money to pay for it," Cerar said. " . . . If the client gets a brief, they're satisfied. If we get paid, we're satisfied."
Howlett said Georgia-Pacific let ACSH prepare the brief and that "we did not review the content." But Whelan said ACSH had "nothing to do" with writing the brief and that "we turned over all our files" to the formaldehyde industry. "We didn't pick the law firm . . . . All we did was submit the science and check the presentation."
Martin J. Atherton, a former ACSH employee who handled the matter, said that Howlett "pretty much dictated to Squire, Sanders & Dempsey the whys and wherefores of the brief. Our part was very, very minimal."
Whelan now says the $900,000-a-year organization is in financial trouble because the Formaldehyde Institute and other industry groups have cut off their donations. "Our adversaries in the Nader camp have a lot more going for them than we do . . . . When you are in the pro-business, free market {conservative} camp, there are very, very few individuals who are philosophically committed," she said in a fund-raising letter.
"During the past two years, we have distributed over 40,000 copies of our booklet on formaldehyde, filed an amicus brief in the institute's litigation against the Consumer Product Safety Commission . . . did numerous articles on the banning . . . . Now that the higher courts have overturned the CPSC ban on urea formaldehyde foam, the Formaldehyde Institute has no interest in us."
|
To
send us your comments, questions, and suggestions click
here |