In 2005 DuPont formed a statement about findings from the ERB (Epidemiology Review Board re PFOA )from which the scholars of this board objected to DuPont’s formed statement. The scholars were distinguished physicians from independent academic halls. Read their objections here:
The details of the tasks of the ERB committee can be found here in this 2008 EWG article:
In February 2006, DuPont’s Susan Stalnecker (DuPont VP and Treasurer sent this ‘urgent’ email to DuPont people regarding ‘scripting’ she wished to convey to the EPA. https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/chemical/docs/?fbclid=IwAR19PD3Y5XpbFATkScapovzjsys2X4rMzp38y4KgZI_aOQbKW8M5pa2Bjxg#id=jppw0228
This concerns me gravely. It states she will be asking ‘Chad’ to reach out to ‘Steve Johnson’.
Steve Johnson was Administrator of the EPA from 2005 to 2009.
The familiarity of a DuPont executive to send an urgent letter to advise the EPA what to say about PFOA is astonishing.
At the same time, in 2006, these DuPont Comments in Response to Proposition 65 give their perspective on why PFOA should not be designated the Prop 65 label.
Remember, in 2005, DuPont was aware of the health concerns of the scholars of the ERB Committee.
DuPont’s Prop 65 statement of 2006 is very concerning to me.
‘THE PINKY SWEAR OF 2006 ‘
Why did EPA launch the PFOA Stewardship Program? https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/fact-sheet-20102015-pfoa-stewardship-program
EPA launched the PFOA Stewardship Program in January 2006 because of concerns about the impact of PFOA and long-chain PFASs on human health and the environment, including concerns about their persistence, presence in the environment and in the blood of the general U.S. population, long half-life in people, and developmental and other adverse effects in laboratory animals.
Well looky here… look who wrote this letter to EPA !!! Gosh darn it lol !! If it isn’t Susan Stalnecker !!! January 25, 2006 :
(oh silly trace amounts… now we get it…. trace amounts lol !!!) PFOA is found in trace amounts in some fluorotelomer products as an unintended byproduct of the manufacturing process.
You see the problem here. In January 2006 Susan Stalnecker was writing the pinky swear letter to EPA promising DuPont would behave. In February of 2006, not even a month later, Susan Stalnecker sounds the alarm to contact
EPA…. to tell them what to say about PFOA…. and… at the same time, as fingers are crossed behind their back in pinky swear to EPA, DuPont tells Cali not to put PFOA in Prop 65 CAUSE THERE ARE NO STUDIES… but there were studies… http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/pesticides/effect.pfos.class.timeline.htm)..
Is it me? Asking for 1.4 million friends who are wearing ‘trace amounts’ of PFOA.