This article on potential nominees for head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission says researchers Gail Charnley and Jacqueline Patterson wrote a letter to a technical journal about a study that they had co-authored without disclosing that the study had been funded partly by pesticide makers. However, the authors disclosed their funding when the original article was published in 2003 in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. Then in 2004, Charnley and Patterson wrote a separate letter to the editor of a different journal, Environmental Health Perspectives, responding to critics of the original article. In their first draft of the 2004 letter to the editor, the researchers said that they had no financial conflict of interest because they were no longer receiving any funding from the pesticide industry. The editor of the journal suggested that because the letter related to their previous article, which had been partially funded by industry, they should disclose the previous funding again. The authors agreed, and the 2004 letter to the editor ran with the following disclosure above their signatures: "The article by Charnley and Patterson (2003) was partially supported by the pesticide industry, which wanted an independent review of its studies. Because they did not receive payment for writing this letter, the authors declare they have no competing financial interests."
| Page 2 of 2 < |
White House Vetting Product-Safety Candidates
Acting Consumer Product Safety Commission Chair Nancy Nord.
(J. Scott Applewhite - AP)
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
The last attempt to fill the job ended in failure. The administration's nominee, Michael Baroody, a longtime lobbyist for the National Association of Manufacturers, withdrew his name in May after his nomination ignited a backlash among Senate Democrats and consumer groups. They criticized his ties to NAM, which represents companies with business before the CPSC, and a $150,000 severance payment he was to receive from the trade group. NAM officials have said the severance agreement was worked out months before Baroody was nominated.
A new CPSC chairman could bring much-needed stability to the small independent agency, which is charged with protecting consumers from "unreasonable risk" of death and injury from more than 15,000 types of products.
The three-member commission has been without an appointed leader since former chairman Harold Stratton stepped down in July 2006. Nord, a former official with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has been acting chairman since then.
Last fall, Democrats in Congress demanded Nord resign for opposing provisions of a Senate bill that would have given the CPSC more authority to disclose information about product hazards and raised the maximum penalty to $100 million from $1.8 million for manufacturers that fail to report problems. In letters to lawmakers, Nord said such measures would be counterproductive by encouraging litigation and stifling cooperation from industry. She declined to comment for this article.
The vacancy on the commission has hampered its ability to initiate mandatory recalls and approve new safety regulations, which require a quorum of three members.
By law, the commission was able to operate with a quorum of two for six months after Stratton left. The quorum lapsed for several months until Congress granted the CPSC another six-month extension in August. That reprieve is set to end Feb. 3.
Staff writer Elizabeth Williamson contributed to this report.
