The National Toxicology Program (NTP) had been created in 1978 to evaluate research and advise the EPA, FDA, and other regulatory agencies on “the potential dangers posed to humans by the 2,000 chemicals registered annually for everyday use.” The NTP was housed at and was partially funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), one of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The NTP was not a regulatory body, but an advisory one.

In 2006, Rust knew, NTP had created two panels to assess the safety of BPA. Vom Saal chaired the first, a group of 38 international BPA experts who worked for universities or governments. In August 2007, this panel released its findings : strong concern about BPA. In rodents, it noted, low doses of BPA caused significant abnormalities; humans were continually exposed to similar doses. [1]

The second panel, however, was less alarmed. It also published preliminary findings in August 2007. The second panel was smaller, only 12 scientists , and they were chosen specifically because they were not BPA experts. They reviewed 742 studies conducted over 30 years. The group’s chair was Robert Chapin, a toxicologist who worked for the pharmaceutical company Pfizer Inc. In its August draft, the smaller panel reported only "some concern" that prenatal and early childhood exposure to BPA might interfere with brain development . It expressed "negligible concern" that humans exposed prenatally to BPA would develop birth defects.

In mid-November, Rust received a draft version of a written report by the smaller panel. It was based on reviews and evaluations of relevant scientific data in three primary areas: human exposure, reproductive toxicity, and developmental toxicity. [2] Rust hoped that, given the NTP’s mission of providing an “objective, science-based approach” to research, she would find its information on BPA impartial and useful. She turned to the draft with anticipation.

Review . Rust went through the NTP panel’s findings, tracking down the studies that the report referenced and evaluating the criteria used to judge the research. To her dismay, she found disturbingly shoddy work. The NTP draft relied on arbitrary data, failed to mention the funding source of the studies that it referenced, and was biased in its review of the scientific evidence. “Some of the studies would say something like ‘We don’t have all the data from this chemical-funded study, but we know these guys are great, so we’re going to say this is a really good study.’ Our jaws would just drop,” says Rust.

The panel’s report criticized one study that had relied on only six rats, only to praise another that used the same number. It cited two studies that had not been peer-reviewed, thus ignoring a crucial standard of scientific credibility. The panel apparently overlooked dozens of studies found easily online, in favor of those chosen by a consultant with links to BPA manufacturers. Finally, it accepted a Korean study that had been translated into English by the ACC, the industry trade group. “That raised a red flag,” says Spivak. “How can you be sure if you have a study in a foreign language that’s translated by the [chemical] industry that you’re getting the full story? Is there a conflict in having it done by the industry as opposed to a neutral third party?”

Kissinger and Spivak called the panel's chair, Chapin, for a comment. "We didn't flippin' care who does the study," said Chapin, who had worked as a government scientist for 18 years before joining Pfizer. His panel, he conceded, had not accepted for its review any studies that found an effect at low doses. He explained that once the panel weeded out studies it believed had been done poorly, none remained that showed effects from low doses. "There's a lot of bad science out there," he said. Steven G. Hentges, executive director of the American Chemistry Council’s Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group, added that their scientists had been unable to replicate the work of some university scientists. "Replication is a hallmark of science, and studies that cannot be replicated cannot be accepted as valid," he said.

Even Spivak was satisfied that the team had fulfilled its obligation to get the views of the industry.