The Production of Corporate Research to Manufacture Doubt About the Health Hazards of Products: An Overview of the Exponent Bakelite® Simulation Study

Our plain-English summary of The Production of Corporate Research to Manufacture Doubt About the Health Hazards of Products: An Overview of the Exponent Bakelite® Simulation Study, by D. Egilman (New Solutions, 2018).

The study

• Author: D. Egilman
• Journal: New Solutions
• Published: 2018;28(2):179-201
• Type of article: Review
• Cited by: 5 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

Although corporate sponsorship of research does not necessarily lead to biased results, in some industries, it has resulted in the publication of inaccurate and misleading data. Some companies have hired scientific consulting firms to retrospectively calculate exposures to hazardous products during use that are no longer manufactured or sold. As an example, this paper reviews one such study-a litigation-generated study of Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos-containing product, Bakelite®. This analysis is based on previously secret documents, produced as a result of litigation. The study generated asbestos fiber exposure measurements which resulted in underestimates of actual exposures to create doubt about the hazards associated with manufacture and manipulation of Bakelite®.

In plain English

In this critical review, not a new exposure study, the author used litigation documents to examine a 2005 Exponent study (Mowat et al.). That study purported to reformulate Union Carbide's asbestos-containing Bakelite plastic and measured airborne asbestos during simulated sawing, sanding and drilling. The author argued that it ignored historical data, including a 1975 report of peak exposures of 14 fibers/cc among users of Bakelite compounds. It also ignored a 1975 Union Carbide study (Faulring et al.). That study found up to 1.2 fibers/cc (area sample) and 0.7 f/cc (breathing zone) during grinding of a 4 percent asbestos product. The author called this about 10-fold higher than Mowat et al. reported for a 31 percent asbestos product. Plaintiff-funded tests by Longo and Hatfield found sanding exposures of 0.34, 0.38, 0.16 and 0.18 f/cc, against an average 0.06 f/cc in Mowat et al. The author also described a substituted resin and chrysotile fiber, a different manufacturing process, removal of small particles, idle time in the band-saw test, and an incomplete quotation of the 1972 OSHA standard. The author concluded that the study underestimated actual exposures and created doubt about Bakelite's hazards.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Critical review of a published exposure simulation study that was generated for litigation, based on previously secret documents produced in litigation
• Who was studied: The 2005 Exponent study (Mowat et al.), which purported to reformulate Union Carbide Corporation's Bakelite molding compound and tested small plaques. The author also drew on historical Union Carbide documents and other exposure studies.
• Exposure: Chrysotile asbestos in phenolic Bakelite molding material. The original formula called for short RF-9 fiber from the Carey Mine; Exponent used Johns-Manville chrysotile from the Jeffrey Mine. The activities simulated were sawing, sanding, drilling and cleanup.
• Main results:
  • A 1975 paper by Union Carbide's marketing manager (Myers), which the author said Mowat et al. ignored, reported peak exposures of 14 fibers/cc among users of Bakelite compounds.
  • A 1975 Union Carbide study (Faulring et al.) found up to 1.2 fibers/cc in an area sample and 0.7 f/cc in the breathing zone during grinding of a 4 percent asbestos product. The author described these results as about 10-fold higher than what Mowat et al. reported for a recreated 31 percent asbestos product, and noted that Mowat et al. did not study grinding.
  • A simulation funded by plaintiff lawyers (Longo and Hatfield), done on an actual sample of original-formula Bakelite, found sanding exposures of 0.34, 0.38, 0.16 and 0.18 f/cc. Mowat et al. reported an average sanding exposure of 0.06 f/cc.
  • According to the author, Exponent did not use Union Carbide's original resin and substituted a different chrysotile fiber.
  • According to the author, Exponent used a different manufacturing process and discarded undersized particles, which would have included small fibers. This step was not in the original Union Carbide protocol.
  • The author reported that in the band-sawing test there was no cutting for 5 minutes 20 seconds of the 14 minute 29 second simulation. According to the author, this lengthened the time over which the time-weighted average was calculated.
  • The author stated that Mowat et al. quoted the 1972 OSHA asbestos labeling standard incompletely. The omitted part limited the labeling exemption to products that do not release fibers above the exposure limits during foreseeable use.
  • The author reported that Mowat et al. did not seek institutional review board approval for the study.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that the Exponent study produced exposure measurements that underestimated actual exposures, creating doubt about the hazards of making and working with Bakelite.

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Bakelite, Work Practice Simulation, Union Carbide.

Related studies

• Occupational exposure to airborne asbestos from phenolic molding material (Bakelite) during sanding, drilling, and related activities — F. Mowat, M. Bono, et al. (2005)
• How conflicted authors undermine the World Health Organization (WHO) campaign to stop all use of asbestos: spotlight on studies showing that chrysotile is carcinogenic and facilitates other non-cancer asbestos-related diseases — X. Baur, C.L. Soskolne, et al. (2015)
• Re: Comments on Egilman's response to Hessel regarding the health hazards of brake dust and his reflections on corporate behavior — D. Paustenbach (2019)
• Dust diseases and the legacy of corporate manipulation of science and law — D. Egilman, T. Bird, et al. (2014)
• Potential health hazards associated with exposures to asbestos-containing drywall accessory products: A state-of-the-science assessment — A.D. Phelka, B.L. Finley (2012)
• Environmental and occupational health hazards associated with the presence of asbestos in brake linings and pads (1900 to present): A "state-of-the-art" review — S.S. Paskal (2004)

Browse more research in New Solutions, or return to medical research.