The team knew that BPA manufacturers, as well as some non-industry scientists, had criticized vom Saal’s work. They charged that his findings could not be replicated, and that his testing methods failed to mimic how humans absorb BPA, producing results both unreliable and irrelevant to humans. [1] But when the reporters in early July tried to schedule an interview with leading officials at the American Chemistry Council, they found that no one would take their calls. No one was available, they were told. Or the people to whom they should speak were unavailable. For three to four weeks, a pattern developed. One of the reporters would call the ACC and ask to speak to a specific person. Whoever answered would put the journalist on hold, then come back and say the official was unavailable. Then in early August, as suddenly as the stonewalling developed, it was over —with no explanation. The team was able to schedule an interview for right after Labor Day (when everyone would be back from vacation).

In early September, the team sat down to its hard-won interview with the American Chemistry Council leadership. The team felt better informed than it had when Spivak had made informational calls in June. Their questions were more pointed: How do you respond to Colburn’s research? To vom Saal’s? Isn’t the industry worried about potential long-term harm to humans?

The reporters decided that all three of them should be in on the interview. For their part, ACC had four or five people in on the conference call. Marty Durbin, federal affairs managing director for ACC, told the group that “[s]cience supports our side.” The ACC group contended that there was no reason to fear endocrine disruptors because none of the industry-funded studies proved harm to humans. To notice any effects, the ACC group said, an individual would have to consume some 500 pounds of canned and bottled foods every day.

In the meantime, the reporters had been in touch with other industry leaders. In July, they called one of the leading chemicals and plastics manufacturers, Dow Chemical Corp., as well as the Weinberg Group, a Washington D.C.-based consulting firm that specialized in advising industry on how to meet regulatory requirements, improve manufacturing processes, and, if challenged, defend their products. Like the other industry representatives, Weinberg consultants defended BPA’s safety record. As Weinberg Executive Vice President James Lamb declared in one interview: “I’m very comfortable with my kids and grandkids using the products, and that’s really my bottom line.” Spivak recalls that “in general, the line that these people took was to point to government findings and say that there was no conclusive evidence that [BPA] was harmful, and that results seen in animal tests weren’t seen in humans.”

But the team had also been in touch with the government. As far as they could determine, government studies were not necessarily the reliable source that citizens might expect.