Bias at International Programme on Chemical Safety?

An international group of 80 unions, environmentalists and scientists has questioned the independence of the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) in the form of an open letter(1) to Dr Mercier, the Director-General of IPCS.

The group wrote to express their view that there is undue corporate influence on the programme's chemical reviews. IPCS, and its three sponsoring UN agencies-ILO, WHO and the UN Environment Programme have strenuously denied the group's allegations.
    The letter to IPCS said: "A number of IPCS publications in the last five years have been criticised as reflecting excessive influence by business interests. With the proliferation of free trade agreements, IPCS may play an unprecedented international role in risk assessment and toxic substances regulation." As a result: "misleadingly mild assessments of chemical hazards by IPCS can result," the letter continues. It cites a number of IPCS publications to back its case, including a report on the fungicide benomyl.
    IPCS wrote a response(2). It stated: "IPCS provides a completely impartial forum for the development of chemical risk assessments. It is open and transparent. There are no instances where any final reports of the IPCS were biased by industry or NGOs. The experts selected for peer-review are the top scientists in the field, and the entire peer-review process is designed to ensure that no bias can possibly enter into the final reports."
    The national regulatory agencies of Australia, Norway, the Netherlands, and Canada have written to support IPCS's position.

1. Letter of 17/4/96 to IPCS.
2. Letter of 26/4/96 response from IPCS.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 34, December 1996, page 9]