A chemical used in the manufacture of Teflon
and other nonstick and stain-resistant products should
be considered a "likely" carcinogen, according to an independent
scientific review panel advising the
Environmental Protection Agency.
The recommendation included in the panel's final draft
report is consistent with its preliminary finding, which
went beyond the EPA's own determination that there was
only "suggestive evidence" from animal studies that perfluorooctanoic
acid and its salts are potential human carcinogens.
"The predominant panel view was that the descriptor 'likely
to be carcinogenic' was more consistent with currently
available data, while a few panel members reached the
conclusion that the current evidence fails to exceed the
descriptor 'suggestive,' of carcinogenicity," the panel
said in a draft report released Monday.
Officials with Wilmington, Del.-based DuPont Co., the
sole North American producer of PFOA, took issue with
the panel's conclusions.
"We disagree with the panel's recommendation on the cancer
classification, and we continue to support the EPA's draft
risk assessment," said Robert Rickard, director of health
and environmental sciences for DuPont.
"This reflects recommended classification; what's more
important is risk, and we are confident that PFOA does
not pose a cancer risk to the general public," added Rickard,
who said the carcinogenicity classification was based
on animal data and does not reflect data from human studies.
PFOA is a processing aid used in the manufacturing of
fluoropolymers, which have a wide variety of product applications,
including nonstick cookware. The chemical also can be
a byproduct in the manufacturing of fluorotelomers used
in surface protection products for applications such as
stain-resistant textiles and grease-resistant food wrapping.
Besides disagreeing with the EPA on the potential carcinogenicity
of PFOA, also known as C-8, a majority of members on the
review panel also recommended that the EPA's risk assessment
include additional data on PFOA's potential to cause liver,
testicular, pancreatic and breast cancers. A majority
of panel members also recommended that the chemical's
effects on hormones and on the nervous and immune systems
be included in the risk assessment, and that studies should
not be limited by age, gender or species in assessing
human risk.
The findings of the panel, which was established by the
EPA's Science Advisory Board, will be reviewed by SAB
officials in a Feb. 15 teleconference.
"The real outcome of this is the panel going back and
saying `You've got to include this extra stuff here; it
wasn't really a rigorous analysis," said Tim Kropp, senior
scientist for the Environmental Working Group, a Washington,
D.C.-based nonprofit organization whose work has prompted
increased government scrutiny of PFOA.
While the EPA is free to accept or reject the panel's
recommendations, Kropp said it rare for the EPA to dismiss
an advisory board's advice.
"They've asked them to do a more rigorous analysis, to
do a more scientific method of determining risk, and you
can't argue with that," he said. "That's just good science."
EPA officials declined to say how the agency might respond
to the report.
"It's sort of what we expected," said EPA deputy administrator
Marcus Peacock, adding that he had not read the full report.
"There's more we don't know here than what we do know."
Susan Hazen, EPA's acting assistant administrator for
the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances,
said much of the work aimed at better understanding PFOA
already is underway.
Hazen and Peacock also pointed to an EPA initiative announced
last week asking DuPont and seven other companies that
manufacture or use PFOA, its precursors, and similar compounds
to reduce environmental releases and levels of those chemicals
in products by 95 percent no later than 2010, using the
year 2000 as a baseline.
The EPA also wants the industry to work toward the elimination
of PFOA and related chemicals from emissions and products
by no later than 2015.
