Connect with us


Professor bragged about burying bad science on 3M chemicals

As a leading international authority on toxic chemicals, Professor John P. Giesy is in the top percentile of active authors in the world.

His resume is littered with accolades, from being named in the Whos Who of the World to receiving the Einstein Professor Award from the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Professor Giesy was credited with being the first scientist to discover toxic per- and poly-fluoroalkyl [PFAS] chemicals in the environment, and with helping to persuade chemical giant 3M Company to abandon their manufacture.

But Fairfax Media can now reveal that Professor Giesy was accused of covertly doing 3Ms bidding in a widespread international campaign to suppress academic research on the dangers of PFAS.

Professor John Giesy was allegedly covertly doing 3Ms bidding in a widespread campaign to suppress academic research on the dangers of PFAS. Photo: Supplied

A trove of internal company documents has been made public for the first time following a $US850 million ($1150 million..



As a leading international authority on toxic chemicals, Professor John P. Giesy is in the top percentile of active authors in the world.

His resume is littered with accolades, from being named in the Whos Who of the World to receiving the Einstein Professor Award from the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Professor Giesy was credited with being the first scientist to discover toxic per- and poly-fluoroalkyl [PFAS] chemicals in the environment, and with helping to persuade chemical giant 3M Company to abandon their manufacture.

But Fairfax Media can now reveal that Professor Giesy was accused of covertly doing 3Ms bidding in a widespread international campaign to suppress academic research on the dangers of PFAS.

Professor John Giesy was allegedly covertly doing 3Ms bidding in a widespread campaign to suppress academic research on the dangers of PFAS. Photo: Supplied

A trove of internal company documents has been made public for the first time following a $US850 million ($1150 million) legal settlement between the company and Minnesota Attorney-General Lori Swanson. They suggest that Professor Giesy was one weapon in an arsenal of tactics used by the company to – in a phrase coined by 3M – “command the science” on the chemicals.

The documents have allowed the state to chronicle how 3M, over decades, allegedly misled the scientific community about the presence of its chemicals in the publics blood, undermined studies linking the chemicals with cancer and scrambled to selectively fund research to be used as a “defensive barrier to litigation”.

Experts have branded the strategies nearly identical to those used historically by the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries.

At least 90 communities across Australia are being investigated for elevated levels of the contaminants, including 10 in Sydney.

The Australian government is aggressively defending a growing number of class actions from towns where the chemicals were used for decades in fire retardants on military bases, the runoff tainting the soil and water of surrounding homes.

The Department of Health maintains there is “no consistent evidence” that the chemicals can cause “important” health effects such as cancer. In arguing this, its experts have made reference to the work of 3M scientists, who insist the chemicals are not harmful at the levels found in the blood of humans.

 Deceased Tartan High School students: Katie Jurek, Aaron Fowler, Nikki Schaut and Alex Crowley.

Deceased Tartan High School students: Katie Jurek, Aaron Fowler, Nikki Schaut and Alex Crowley.

3M has vigorously denied the allegations. It did not accept liability in February, when it reached a settlement on the courthouse steps over alleged damage to Minnesotas natural resources and drinking water.

A spokesperson said: “The vast body of scientific evidence, which consists of decades of research conducted by independent third parties and 3M, does not show that these chemistries negatively impact human health at current exposure levels”.

But several leading public health agencies in the United States have sounded warnings to the contrary.

In 2016, the United States Environmental Protection Agency found the “weight of evidence” supported the conclusion that the chemicals were a human health hazard, warning that exposure over certain levels could result in immune and developmental effects and cancer.

The US National Toxicology Program found they were “presumed to be an immune hazard” based on high levels of evidence from animal studies and a moderate level from humans.

Immune suppression – usually as a result of conditions such as organ transplant or HIV – is known to increase the risk of several types of cancer by making the immune system less able to detect and destroy cancer cells or fight cancer-causing infections.

DuPont, which used PFAS chemicals in the manufacture of Teflon, reached a $US670 million settlement with residents living near its manufacturing plant in Ohio, West Virginia, last year, after an expert health panel conducted a large-scale epidemiological investigation. It concluded that residents drinking water, tainted with one of the chemicals called PFOA, had a “probable link” to six health conditions, including kidney and testicular cancer.

One of 3Ms own material data safety sheets for a PFAS chemical included a warning that it could cause cancer in 1997 – that was subsequently removed – according to the Minnesota case.

The chemical of greatest concern in Australia is perfluorooctane sulfonate, or PFOS, arguably the most toxic of the chemicals studied. This was widely used in Scotchgard and fire-fighting foams.

A 3M advertisement for fire-fighting foam. Photo: Photo supplied

A 3M advertisement for fire-fighting foam. Photo: Photo supplied

Last month, there was a storm of controversy amid claims that the US EPA and the White House blocked the publication of a health study on PFAS carried out by the countrys Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

In emails leaked to Politico, a Trump administration aide warned that the report would be a “public relations nightmare” because it would show that the chemicals endangered human health at far lower levels than what the EPA had previously deemed safe.

Health warnings were echoed by Harvard Professor Philippe Grandjean and Professor Jamie DeWitt of North Carolina State University in their expert testimonies for the State of Minnesota.

Professor Grandjean argued that PFAS chemicals pose a “substantial present and potential hazard” to human health, including to immune, thyroid, liver, endocrine, cardiovascular and reproductive functions, and by “causing or increasing the risk of cancer”.

“Both PFOA and PFOS show convincing associations with these outcomes,” he said, adding that risks to human health had been identified at very low exposure levels.

Watching 'bad papers'

To the outside world, Professor Giesy was a renowned and independent university academic.

“But privately, he characterised himself as part of the 3M team,” alleged the State of Minnesota.

“Despite spending most of his career as a professor at public universities, Professor Giesy has a net worth of approximately $20 million. This massive wealth results at least in part from his long-term involvement with 3M for the purpose of suppressing independent scientific research on PFAS.”

Professor Giesys consulting company appears to have received payments from 3M between at least 1998 and 2009. One document indicated his going rate was about $US275 an hour.

In an email to a 3M laboratory manager, Professor Giesy described his role as trying to keep “bad papers out of the literature”, because in “litigation situations they can be a large obstacle to refute”.

Professor Giesy was an editor of several academic journals and, in any given year, about half of the papers submitted on PFAS came to him for review.

“Some journals … for conflict-of-interest issues will not allow an industry to review a paper about one of their products. That is where I came in,” he wrote in another email.

“In time sheets, I always listed these reviews as literature searches so that there was no paper trail to 3M.”

Professor Giesy is alleged to have passed confidential manuscripts on to 3M, as well as an email from an EPA scientist detailing its latest PFAS investigations in Athens, Georgia. He allegedly bragged about rejecting the publication of at least one paper containing negative information about PFAS.

In another email chain, a 3M manager was concerned that a study Professor Giesy had drafted was “suggestive” of possible PFAS health hazards and should be cushioned with an accompanying document on the health effects.

“This paper … could set off a chain reaction of speculation that could reopen the issue with the media and move it back to a health story; something up to now we have avoided,” he wrote.

Professor Giesy is based at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada, but he also holds positions with the University of Michigan and several Chinese universities.

An internal 3M document referred to him needing to “buy favours” when developing joint projects with Chinese colleagues “over whom he can exert some influence”.

A spokesperson for the University of Saskatchewan said it had conducted two reviews of Dr Giesys conduct.

“We found nothing out of the ordinary or evidence of conflict of interest,” she said.

The university stressed that the “vast majority” of Professor Giesys work for 3M was conducted while at Michigan State University, despite evidence of 3M payments to Professor Giesys consulting company after he arrived in Canada.

Professor Giesys explanations included that these were “possibly” payments for previous work or studies by other employees of his consultancy. “He cannot be absolutely sure of the timing,” the university spokesperson said.

“With respect to the emails … Dr Giesy explained to us that bad papers referred to bad science or inaccurate papers or poorly conducted research … and no paper trail to 3M was due to the sensitivity of research findings conducted on PFAS produced by companies, primarily in foreign countries, other than 3M.”

But several academics were furious with the universitys position. Professor Arthur Schafer, an expert in applied ethics at the University of Manitoba, slammed the explanation for the “no paper trail” comment as “ludicrously implausible”.

“I dont think it matters a hoot whether Giesys ethically questionable activities all took place prior to his coming on staff at the University of Saskatchewan or whether they continued,” he said.

“The evidence points to deeply troubling conduct which, if confirmed by a proper investigation, should lead to disciplinary action – probably termination, given the seriousness of the behaviour.”

One of the universitys council members, Professor Len Findlay, was unconvinced by the universitys reviews.

“A key question remains: If the University of Saskatchewan had known much sooner about those emails between Giesy and 3M, would they still have recruited him? If so, what does that say about their desperation to buy a more illustrious institutional reputation and ranking through hires?” Professor Findlay said.

“And what about 3Ms agreement to settle out of court, after delaying that action until the very last minute? What does that suggest about the nature of work undertaken on their behalf?”

Court hears how a Fortune 500 company doctored the science:

The actions of Professor Giesy were a jigsaw piece in a much broader puzzle, according to the State of Minnesota. It alleged that 3M:

  • Formed an internal team to “command the science” on the chemicals, erect “defensive barriers to litigation” and ensure scientific papers did not include information contrary to the companys “business interests”
  • Funded friendly research, on the condition the company could edit the draft scientific papers and, on occasion, control whether they were published at all
  • Referred reporters to “independent third party experts” who were actually carefully vetted, paid for their services and signed confidentiality agreements
  • Destroyed documents, told staff to stamp all documents relating to PFAS as attorney-client privileged, throw away pencil notes from meetings and not to jot down thoughts because of how they could be viewed during legal discovery. One employee made a note to “clean out computer of all electronic data” on the chemicals.

Decades of inaction

When 3M announced the voluntary phase-out of PFOS in 2000, it was presented as an environmentally responsible decision – costing the company $US480 million in annual revenue – and based on concerns over the discovery of PFOS in the blood of the general population in 1997.

But according to internal documents, the company had actually made that discovery decades earlier, in the 1970s.

Just before the phase-out announcement, the US EPA reviewed a PFOS study in rats, in which all of the offspring of the first generation died and many offspring of the second generation.

“It is very unusual to see such second-generation effects,” the director of its Chemical Control Division wrote.

About that time, scientist Richard Purdy quit 3M and copied the agency in on his resignation letter.

He expressed “outrage” that his colleagues wanted to avoid collecting data on PFOS, which he described as “the most insidious pollutant” since polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) and “probably worse”.

PCB was an industrial chemical that was banned when it was found to be a human carcinogen.

“I have worked to the best of my ability within the system to see that the right actions are taken on behalf of the environment,” he wrote. “Yet I see slow or no results. I am told the company is concerned, but their actions speak to different concerns than mine.”

The failure of 3M to report information to the EPA on the adverse effects of the chemicals ultimately resulted in a $US1.5 million fine.

In his testimony, Professor Grandjean argued that 3M had documented adverse effects in animals as early as the 1970s, with one researcher warning that PFOS was “certainly more toxic than anticipated”. 3M did not pursue findings of PFAS in the breast milk of animals, and published some of its studies after lags of 25 years, Professor Grandjean found.

Professor Philippe Grandjean of Harvard University. Photo: Supplied

Professor Philippe Grandjean of Harvard University. Photo: Supplied

More concerning were several 3M-sponsored studies of its own exposed factory workers that showed elevated rates of prostate cancer, including statistically significant findings.

One paper put the spike in prostate cancer deaths down to chance or because of the higher prevalence of prostate cancer in Minnesota.

“Subsequent analyses provided to 3M … indicate that prostate cancer was actually less prevalent in Minnesota than in the US,” Professor Grandjean wrote.

“Early studies of worker health inappropriately sought to explain away any possible associations with ill health.”

In 1979, renowned scientist Dr Harold Hodge warned the company that if the chemicals were found to be widespread in the blood of the general population and had long half-lives, “we could have a serious problem”. The phrase was removed in a later document referring to the conversation.

In another internal email, a 3M scientist wrote that one consideration as to whether a study should be done on reproductive effects was “the possibility of finding reproductive effects when conducting such a study”.

Another controversy arose surrounding the work of a University of Minnesota thesis student, Frank Gilliland, who did early studies on 3Ms exposed factory workers. He found signs of hormonal and immune system abnormalities in males. But follow-up studies authored by 3M “undermined” these findings, Professor Grandjean said.

Professor Grandjean has pioneered research into the effects of the chemicals on childhood vaccines, finding that as PFAS exposure doubled, vaccines were about half as effective in children in the Faroe Islands. A “substantial” number of children had such low levels of antibodies that they had virtually no protection against the diseases.

He expressed concern about the scarcity of research into the effect of chemicals on infants and unborn children, who were exposed through cord blood and breast milk and were “likely more vulnerable to toxic effects”.

'A dirty game of survival'

It is no secret that 3M has poured significant funds into sponsoring PFAS research by consultancies and academic institutions. But the court documents indicate the company may have gone further – influencing studies but keeping its fingerprint hidden. According to court documents, the use of a “ghost writer” was floated at a 3M meeting in 2008.

Professor Lisa Bero, of the University of Sydney, is internationally renowned for her investigations into the influence of industry on scientific research, as one of the first authors to scrutinise the tactics used by the tobacco and pharmaceutical companies.

Much of her work has been based on documents that have come to light through litigation.

“Its directly parallel, I would have to say – the strategies that were used in the PFAS case are really all the same as weve seen used across the other industries,” she said.

“Even the wording was identical.”

One of the most interesting elements, she said, was that they all referred to scientific publication strategies.

“That is all about generating evidence to either protect them from litigation or to market their products. Its not about creating new scientific knowledge.”

The key witness for 3M in the Minnesota case was Ellen Chang, a principal scientist at scientific consultancy Exponent.

In her testimony, she argued that the weight of epidemiological evidence did not prove a causal link between exposure to PFAS and “specific adverse health outcomes in humans”.

Exponent, based in California, has courted controversy on several occasions in the US, with some critics labelling it a “hired gun” producing science to meet the needs of corporations in messy courtroom battles. The firm has come under fire for casting doubt on studies linking second-hand smoke with cancer, as well as rates of lung cancer among mechanics exposed to brakes containing asbestos.

“That criticism is quite simply factually wrong,” an Exponent spokesperson said. “We provide our clients with our engineering and scientific findings, which are frequently not what they would like to hear but rather what they need to know.”

A 2016 study authored by Ms Chang reviewed all available evidence and concluded that PFAS exposure did not increase the risk of cancer in humans.

The study was cited by toxicologists working for Australias Department of Defence as part of a human health risk assessment on exposed populations in Australia.

It was also included in a report by the Department of Healths expert panel on PFAS, which concluded that the current evidence did not support a “large impact” from PFAS exposure on a persons health.

However, the panel did admit that “important health effects” cannot be ruled out, and there was “fairly consistent” evidence linking PFAS exposure with changes in immune response, altered sex hormones, increased cholesterol, reduced kidney function and low birth weight.

Professor Nicholas Buckley, of the University of Sydney, who chaired the panel, defended the use of Ms Changs studies in its review and argued that the “most importance guidance” came from other independent studies.

“The major potential conflicts of interest for Changs 3M-funded reviews were noted in the PFAS report on multiple occasions, and the likely impact of that was considered,” he said.

“Their results get summarised on about half-a-dozen pages in a 400-page report.”

But lawyer Robert Bilott, who led the successful class action against Dupont in West Virginia, criticised the decision.

“Papers prepared years after the fact to serve to manufacture doubt or perpetuate a false perception of uncertainty … with respect to PFOA should not be relied upon or cited as a basis for minimising or ignoring potential health risks,” he wrote.

Dr Fardin Oliaei did not pause when asked whether 3Ms studies on the chemicals could be trusted, responding “of course not”.

As a scientist with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, she was one of the first to begin investigating the spread of PFAS chemicals in the state. She alleges she was blocked from conducting her research and eventually forced out of her job, at a time when the agency was headed by Commissioner Sheryl Corrigan, a former high-ranking 3M manager.

“The reality is this is a game, a dirty game of survival, of big industry,” said Dr Oliaei, who settled a whistleblower lawsuit filed in the federal court.

“Seeing other scientists who lose their dignity and sleep in the same bed with this dirty corrupted industry? Its heartbreaking.

“But when I look at it in a global level … heres what it is: You just have to be someone that you can go to bed and put your head in peace on the pillow.”

Day three: The contaminated Australian sites

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Sydney seaplane crash: Exhaust fumes affected pilot, report confirms




The pilot of a seaplane that crashed into an Australian river, killing all on board, had been left confused and disorientated by leaking exhaust fumes, investigators have confirmed.

The Canadian pilot and five members of a British family died in the crash north of Sydney in December 2017.

All were found to have higher than normal levels of carbon monoxide in their blood, a final report has found.

It recommended the mandatory fitting of gas detectors in all such planes.

British businessman Richard Cousins, 58, died alongside his 48-year-old fiancée, magazine editor Emma Bowden, her 11-year-old daughter Heather and his sons, Edward, 23, and William, 25, and pilot Gareth Morgan, 44. Mr Cousins was the chief executive of catering giant Compass.

The family had been on a sightseeing flight in the de Havilland DHC-2 Beaver plane when it nose-dived into the Hawkesbury River at Jerusalem Bay, about 50km (30 miles) from the city centre.

The final report by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) confirmed the findings of an interim report published in 2020.

It said pre-existing cracks in the exhaust collector ring were believed to have released exhaust gas into the engine bay. Holes left by missing bolts in a firewall then allowed the fumes to enter the cabin.

“As a result, the pilot would have almost certainly experienced effects such as confusion, visual disturbance and disorientation,” the report said.

“Consequently, it was likely that this significantly degraded the pilot’s ability to safely operate the aircraft.”

The ATSB recommended the Civil Aviation Safety Authority consider mandating the fitting of carbon monoxide detectors in piston-engine aircraft that carry passengers.

It previously issued safety advisory notices to owners and operators of such aircraft that they install detectors “with an active warning” to pilots”. Operators and maintainers of planes were also advised to carry out detailed inspections of exhaust systems and firewalls.

Read from source:

Continue Reading


Australia unlikely to fully reopen border in 2021, says top official




Australia is unlikely to fully open its borders in 2021 even if most of its population gets vaccinated this year as planned, says a senior health official.

The comments dampen hopes raised by airlines that travel to and from the country could resume as early as July.

Department of Health Secretary Brendan Murphy made the prediction after being asked about the coronavirus’ escalation in other nations.

Dr Murphy spearheaded Australia’s early action to close its borders last March.

“I think that we’ll go most of this year with still substantial border restrictions,” he told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on Monday.

“Even if we have a lot of the population vaccinated, we don’t know whether that will prevent transmission of the virus,” he said, adding that he believed quarantine requirements for travellers would continue “for some time”.

Citizens, permanent residents and those with exemptions are allowed to enter Australia if they complete a 14-day hotel quarantine at their own expense.

Qantas – Australia’s national carrier – reopened bookings earlier this month, after saying it expected international travel to “begin to restart from July 2021.”

However, it added this depended on the Australian government’s deciding to reopen borders.

Australia’s tight restrictions

The country opened a travel bubble with neighbouring New Zealand late last year, but currently it only operates one-way with inbound flights to Australia.

Australia has also discussed the option of travel bubbles with other low-risk places such as Taiwan, Japan and Singapore.

A vaccination scheme is due to begin in Australia in late February. Local authorities have resisted calls to speed up the process, giving more time for regulatory approvals.

Australia has so far reported 909 deaths and about 22,000 cases, far fewer than many nations. It reported zero locally transmitted infections on Monday.

Experts have attributed much of Australia’s success to its swift border lockdown – which affected travellers from China as early as February – and a hotel quarantine system for people entering the country.

Local outbreaks have been caused by hotel quarantine breaches, including a second wave in Melbourne. The city’s residents endured a stringent four-month lockdown last year to successfully suppress the virus.

Other outbreaks – including one in Sydney which has infected about 200 people – prompted internal border closures between states, and other restrictions around Christmas time.

The state of Victoria said on Monday it would again allow entry to Sydney residents outside of designated “hotspots”, following a decline in cases.

While the measures have been praised, many have also criticised them for separating families across state borders and damaging businesses.

Dr Murphy said overall Australia’s virus response had been “pretty good” but he believed the nation could have introduced face masks earlier and improved its protections in aged care homes.

In recent days, Australia has granted entry to about 1,200 tennis players, staff and officials for the Australian Open. The contingent – which has recorded at least nine infections – is under quarantine.

Read from source:

Continue Reading


Covid: Brisbane to enter three-day lockdown over single infection




The Australian city of Brisbane has begun a snap three-day lockdown after a cleaner in its hotel quarantine system became infected with coronavirus.

Health officials said the cleaner had the highly transmissible UK variant and they were afraid it could spread.

Brisbane has seen very few cases of the virus beyond quarantined travellers since Australia’s first wave last year.

It is the first known instance of this variant entering the Australian community outside of hotel quarantine.

The lockdown is for five populous council areas in Queensland’s state capital.

Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk announced the measure on Friday morning local time, about 16 hours after the woman tested positive.

Ms Palaszczuk said the lockdown aimed to halt the virus as rapidly as possible, adding: “Doing three days now could avoid doing 30 days in the future.”

“I think everybody in Queensland… knows what we are seeing in the UK and other places around the world is high rates of infection from this particular strain,” she said.

“And we do not want to see that happening here in our great state.”

Australia has reported 28,500 coronavirus infections and 909 deaths since the pandemic began. By contrast, the US, which is the hardest-hit country, has recorded more than 21 million infections while nearly 362,000 people have died of the disease.The lockdown will begin at 18:00 on Friday (08:00 GMT) in the Brisbane city, Logan and the Ipswich, Moreton and Redlands local government areas.

Residents will only be allowed to leave home for certain reasons, such as buying essential items and seeking medical care.

For the first time, residents in those areas will also be required to wear masks outside of their homes.

Australia has faced sporadic outbreaks over the past year, with the most severe one in Melbourne triggering a lockdown for almost four months.

A pre-Christmas outbreak in Sydney caused fresh alarm, but aggressive testing and contact-tracing has kept infection numbers low. The city recorded four local cases on Friday.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s government has pledged to start mass vaccinations in February instead of March as was planned.

Lockdown interrupts ‘near normal’ life in Brisbane

Simon Atkinson, BBC News in Brisbane

At 8:00 today I popped to the local supermarket for some bread, milk – and because it’s summer here – a mango. I was pretty much the only customer.

When I went past the same shop a couple of hours later it was a different story – 50 people standing in the drizzle – queuing to get inside as others emerged with bulging shopping bags. “Heaps busier than Christmas,” a cheery trolley attendant told me. “It’s off the scale”.

Despite the “don’t panic” messages from authorities, pictures on social media show it’s a pattern being repeated across the city.

While shutdowns are common around the world, the tough and sudden stay-at-home order for Brisbane has caught people on the hop here after months of near normality.

But while such a rapid, hard lockdown off the back of just a single case of Covid-19 will seem crazy in some parts of the world, I’ve not come across too many people complaining.

And I don’t think that’s just because Aussies love to follow a rule. This is the first time the UK variant of the virus has been detected in the community in Australia.

And nobody here wants Brisbane to go through what Melbourne suffered last year. Even if it means going without mangoes.

Read from source:

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2020 ,