Abstract
A number of serious environmental health hazards created by under-regulated/unregulated industries have morphed into public health crises around the world. The Conference on Corporate Interference with Science and Health (the Conference) was held to examine this trend in three economically significant industries: fracking, food, and wireless. The Conference provided an overview of the structures of these three industries and the history of standard-setting therein, identified the sources of environmental exposures created by these industries, and surveyed the health consequences of these exposures and the policies that have resulted in them. It then examined corporate influence on the setting of these policies and the production of scientific studies and interpretation of their results. The Conference also analyzed the general influence of corporations on the political system and the relationship of this conflict of interest to the aforementioned topics. The concluding discussion focused on what solutions could be implemented to improve public health, including what institutional changes are necessary to promote public awareness and change policy.
- 1)
Proceedings of the Conference on Corporate Interference with Science and Health, held at 58 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA on March 13–14, 2013.
References
1. Huff J. Industry influence on occupational and environmental public health. Int J Occup Environ Health 2007;13:107–17.10.1179/oeh.2007.13.1.107Search in Google Scholar
2. Huss A, Egger M, Hug K, Huwiler-Munterer K, Roosli M. Source of funding and results of studies of health effects of mobile phone use: systematic review of experimental studies. Environ Health Perspect 2007;115:1–4.10.1289/ehp.9149Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
3. Hardell L, Walker MJ, Walhjalt B, Friedman LS, Richter ED. Secret ties to industry and conflicting interests in cancer research. Am J Ind Med 2006; DOI 10.1002/ajim.20357.10.1002/ajim.20357Search in Google Scholar PubMed
4. Conference Speaker Bios, Available at: http://www.corporateinterference.org/speakerbios.html.Search in Google Scholar
5. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. 36 CFR Part 1191. [Docket No. 98-5] RIN 3014-AA16. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities; Recreation Facilities, Final Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 170, September 3, 2002, 56353.Search in Google Scholar
6. IEQ Indoor Environmental Quality: A project of the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) with funding support from the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (United States Access Board), 2005.Search in Google Scholar
7. Letter from Carl T. Thurnau, PE to Deborah Kopald, Re: February 7 letter to the Board of Regents, 9/21/12.Search in Google Scholar
8. Report to the New York State Board of Regents on the Environmental Quality of Schools, Regents Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality in Schools, 1994:8.Search in Google Scholar
9. Rosenberg SB, Ginsborg DH (Executive Environmental). Industrial Hygiene Report – EMF Study, Acacia Elementary School prepared for L. Bruneau, Fullerton School District, 6/26/13; Email from Joe Imbriano to Executive Environmental, 7/30/13.Search in Google Scholar
10. Khalid M, Mee T, Peyman A, Addison D, Calderon C, et al. Exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields from wireless computer networks: duty factors of Wi-Fi devices operating in schools. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 2011;107:412–20.10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2011.08.004Search in Google Scholar PubMed
11. Frei P, Mohler E, Burgi A, Frohlich J, Neubauer G, et al. Classification of personal exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) for epidemiological research: evaluation of different exposure assessment methods. Environ Int 2010;36:714–20.10.1016/j.envint.2010.05.005Search in Google Scholar PubMed
12. Johansson O. Electrohypersensitivity: state-of-the-art of a functional impairment. Electromagn Biol Med 2006; 25:245–58.10.1080/15368370601044150Search in Google Scholar PubMed
13. Schröttner J, Leitgeb N. Sensitivity to electricity-temporal changes in Austria. BMC Public Health 2008;8:310.10.1186/1471-2458-8-310Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
14. Schreier N, Huss A, Röösli M. The prevalence of symptoms attributed to electromagnetic field exposure: a cross-sectional representative survey in Switzerland. Soz Praventivmed 2006;51:202–9.10.1007/s00038-006-5061-2Search in Google Scholar PubMed
15. Yannon v. New York Telephone, 86 A.D.2d 241; 450 N.Y.S2d 893 (App Div, 1982).Search in Google Scholar
16. Johnson Liakouris AG. Radiofrequency (RF) sickness in the Lilienfeld Study: an effect of modulated microwaves? Arch Environ Health 1998;53:236–8.10.1080/00039899809605701Search in Google Scholar PubMed
17. Lavallois P, Neutra R, Lee G, Hristova L. Study of self-reported hypersensitivity to electromagnetic fields in California. Environ Health Perspect 2002;110(Suppl. 4):619–23.10.1289/ehp.02110s4619Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
18. McCarty DE, Carrubba S, Chesson AL, Frilot C, Gonzalez-Toledo E, et al. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: evidence for a novel neurological syndrome. Int J Neurosci 2011;121:670–6.10.3109/00207454.2011.608139Search in Google Scholar PubMed
19. Levitt B, Lai H. Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environ Rev 2010;18:369–95.10.1139/A10-018Search in Google Scholar
20. Blettner M, Schlehofer B, Breckenkamp J, Kowall B, Schmiedel S, et al. Mobile phone base stations and adverse health effects: phase 1: a population-based cross-sectional study in Germany. Occup Environ Med 2009;66:118–23.10.1136/oem.2007.037721Search in Google Scholar PubMed
©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston
