Journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine - April 2006 - 1
International EMF Project, is also Chairman representatives from the power industry. When Gilles Theriault’s McGill team wanted
Emeritis of ICNIRP.6 Members of the press were barred from to further analyse the HFT data for other
Including Repacholi, half of the official attending. 11 In addition the meeting was not associations, Hydro-Quebec, which funded the
members of the WHO task group are also publicised on either the WHO web site meetings $3 million study, and therefore owned the
members of ICNIRP, so it is obvious that there list or the Bioelectromagnetics Society collected data, refused further access to the
are no secrets between ICNIRP and the Task Newsletter’s conference calendar and very few data. Plante said at the time that “we have a
Group. members of the EMF scientific community, contract problem that has to be resolved and
including important EMF epidemiologists, there will be no new mandate until it is solved”.
were even aware of the meeting. 12 Only industry Plante argued that by Theriault publishing the
Industry influence endemic in representatives received invitations. Why were findings on HFT he had violated the contract
the decision making process the epidemiologists who were directly involved with the utilities. Many senior EMF researchers
As reported by the New York based in the research that the WHO’s risk assessment and epidemiologists saw the HFT data as
publication, Microwave News , on having important implications and
October 1, 2005, the 20 member WHO needing further analysis by other
Task Group writing a new Environmental researchers.18 As of October 2005 the
Health Criteria (EHC) document on Hydro-Quebec HFT data has
power frequency EMFs included, at the continued to be suppressed from any
request of Repacholi, repre-sentatives further analysis by the scientific
from the electrical utilities, or community – and Plante, as Hydro-
organisations with close ties with the Quebec’s man at the centre of that
industry. Their task was to both assist suppression, has now been asked by
in writing the initial draft and review the Repacholi to review the WHO’s
completed draft.7 This is in clear conflict Environmental Health Criteria risk
with what Repacholi stated in his assessment.
testimony in the May 2001 Australian It is not known if Plante was asked
Senate Inquiry hearings. To quote again: at the meetings about the “positive
“There cannot be someone on the statistical association” seen in the
© 2004 Daan Spijer
working group who is having an influence Hydro-Quebec HFT data, but he could
on health effects for an industry when have replied that it is not important
they derive benefit from that industry.” task group would evaluate, not also invited as because it has not yet been replicated!
One of the central authors of the draft, and observers and reviewers? The Utility Health Sciences Group, another
member of the EHC Task Group, Leeka The Microwave News article points out that power industry group that Repacholi asked to
Kheifets, was a former WHO assistant to a number of independent researchers were review the EHC draft document, plainly
Michael Repacholi. She disclosed in Sept. 2005 involved in the preparation and review of the indicated that they considered increased costs
in a letter (declaring any potential conflicts of draft, but it was “highly unusual, if not to industry should take precedence over health
interest) to the British Medical Journal that unprecedented, for a WHO health document to considerations when they proposed a change
she “works with the Electric Power Research be reviewed by so many with such strong ties in the chapter on protective measures that
Institute… and consults with utilities.”8 Other to the affected industry,”13 stated:
power industry representatives who assisted One example of an industry reviewer’s “It should also be pointed out that redirecting
Kheifets in preparing the draft were Gabor viewpoint, seeking to downplay potential health facilities or redesigning electrical systems may
Mezei, from the EPRI, Jack Sahl from Southern hazards, is seen in the comments from Michel be so expensive as to be inconsistent with the
California Edison (USA), and Jack Swanson Plante, representing Hydro-Quebec: low-cost and no-cost steps typically viewed as
from the National Grid (UK). When Repacholi “The whole section on cancer seems more prudent avoidance.” 19
sent a draft of the EHC out for review in early like a desperate attempt to maintain some
July 2005, the reviewers included re- positive statistical association from The UHSG also proposed a statement be
presentatives from the power industry bodies: epidemiological studies alive than a factual included in the summary:
The Federation of Electric Power Companies and honest presentation of arguments both for “It would be useful for the summary to
of Japan, Pacificorp (USA), Hydro-Quebec and against carcinogenicity.”14 include a clear statement that the scientific
(Canada), the Utility Health Sciences Group research does not establish ELF EMF as a
(USA) and Exponent Inc (USA).9 The question Plante’s role as a protector of his employer’s cause or contributing factor in any disease or
of liability must have also been on the agenda, interests in denying a cancer link with EMFs adverse health effect, including cancer.” 20
as Exponent has described its business activities was amply demonstrated in his involvement,
as follows: as a Hydro-Quebec representative, in
The Myth of not accepting
“Exponent serves clients in automotive, suppressing potentially damaging cancer data
aviation, chemical, construction, energy, in a 1994 Hydro-Quebec funded epi- funding from industry
government, health, insurance, manufacturing, demiological study by Dr Gilles Theriault et al. It is stated on the ICNIRP web site that in
technology and other sectors of the economy. from McGill University. The initial analysis order to protect its status as an independent
Many of our engagements are initiated by of the data collected from three electric utilities advisory body, “ ICNIRP also does not accept
lawyers or insurance companies, whose clients found that workers who had the greatest funding from industry”.21 When it comes to the
anticipate, or are engaged in, litigation over an exposures to magnetic fields had twelve times WHO’s International EMF Project, however,
alleged failure of their products, equipment or the expected rate of astrocytomas, a type of no such restrictions apply. As Repacholi has
services.” 10 brain tumour, based on a small number of cases.15 stated, the:
In a later re-analysis of the data16 , this time “[EMF]Project can receive funding from
In addition to WHO staff, the only other looking at high frequency transients (HFT), any source through Royal Adelaide Hospital;
observers that Repacholi invited to the WHO the McGill University team found up to a 10- an agency established through WHO Legal
Task Group meeting in Geneva on 3 October fold increased risk of developing lung cancer Department agreement to collect funds for the
to recommend exposure limits, were eight amongst highly exposed utility workers, with project.”22
a “very clear” exposure-response relationship.17
2 - Journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine - April 2006
Questions of a conflict-of-interest and even of interest and ethics policies throughout least, WHO has forgotten the hard lessons
money laundering could be raised at this point UN agencies. learnt with its previous experiences with Big
when it was revealed by Microwave News that 8. WHO should urge Member States to Tobacco. In the case of WHO’s Task Group
Repacholi, as head of the EMF Project, receives conduct their own investigations of possible writing the new Environmental Health Criteria
$150,000 annually from the cellphone tobacco company influence on national (EHC) for power frequency EMFs, a violation
industry. 23 However, Repacholi could decisions and policies, and to publish reports of the above recommendations urgently calls
rightfully still claim that he does not receive on their findings. for an independent evaluation to protect both
any direct funding from industry sources since 11. Appoint an ombudsman or other public health and WHO’s integrity.
it is funneled through the Royal Adelaide independent offices, outside the standard
Hospital. This arrangement may be in violation lines of reporting authority, with autonomy
In Conclusion
of a current WHO rule against employees and and clear authority for enforcing ethical
consultants accepting any “gift or rules. It is acknowledged that in an ever
remumeration” from external sources 12. Disseminate conflict of interest rules more increasingly globalized world the reliance on
“incompatible” with their duties to WHO. 24 broadly. international organisations to set standards to
14. Introduce a formal process for vetting protect public health is an irrefutable fact of
A Claytons oversight committee? prospective employees, consultants, modern life. It is also a fact that international
advisers, and committee members, to organizations charged with this task need to be
According to a fact sheet,New
identify conflicts of interest.. “eternally vigilant” to ensure that their
Electromagnetic Fields Exposure Guidelines,
19. Prohibit employees, consultants, advisers, organisations are not co-opted by vested
published by the European Commission in
and committee members from holding any interests groups – as exampled by Big Tobacco
December 2005, an “International Advisory
substantial financial affiliation with the and WHO.
Committee” (IAC) has been set up to provide
tobacco industry, including any employee However when it comes to non-ionizing
oversight to the WHO’s International EMF
or consulting relationship. . . radiation issues (in this case for power
Project. This committee consists of
frequency health risk assessment) the evidence
representatives of international organisations,
is clear that Michael Repacholi has used his
S
independent scientific institutions and national uch a blatant standing in both WHO and ICNIRP to stack
governments who are supporting the Project.25
In this case IAC oversight should essentially disregard for the the WHO’s Environmental Health Criteria
Task Group for power frequency exposures
operate much the same as a judicial oversight fundamental with representatives of the power industry in
committee where a judicial branch of the
contravention of WHO policy. This can only
government watches or monitors what is going principles of credible be to the detriment of the group’s ability to
on or happening in a case or matter. In the
judicial arena it is a form of checks and balances
science as well as WHO’s evaluate the scientific literature in an unbiased
way. This action can only be construed as
that operates to keep law officers from abusing mission on protecting being aimed at ensuring that industry
their powers.26 In the case of the WHO’s EMF
Project IAC oversight should operate to
world health speaks of a involvement in determining the WHO
Environmental Health Criteria will bias
prevent WHO officials from abusing their desperation to bury ICNIRP’s risk assessment for power frequency
powers - and this should include preventing
the possibility of bias through conflict-of- independent science at exposure limits for years to come. This will
conveniently provide economic protection for
interest. It would also be important for the all costs, even if that cost the industry against the need to spend
IAC to maintain an arms-length distance from
the project activities that it is supposed to is the integrity of WHO. enormous sums of money on upgrading
distribution systems as well as risks of
monitor.
litigation. Such a blatant disregard for the
The question then needs to be asked of the
fundamental principles of credible science, as
IAC: Why have they failed to intervene in the
20. Disqualify any professional services from well as WHO’s mission on protecting world
case of blatant industry influence on the WHO’s
performing work on behalf of WHO if the health, speaks of a desperation to bury
EMF Task Group?
firm also provides a tobacco company with independent science at all costs, even if that
services likely to be adverse to the interest cost is the integrity of WHO.
Forgotten Lessons: Big Tobacco and
of public health. . .
Protecting the Integrity of WHO 21. Prohibit employees, consultants, advisers The Author is not affiliated with any company
Decision Making and committee members from accepting any supplying telecommunications services.
In July 2000 the WHO Committee of Experts item of value from a Tobacco company or
on Tobacco Industry Documents released a its affiliates. . .
260-page report documenting the tactics used 35. WHO and IARC should take steps to educate
by the tobacco industry’s strategies to their scientific investigators and
undermine the work of the WHO.27 At the collaborators about tobacco company efforts
same time the WHO issued a 15-page response to undermine research and the need for
document listing a detailed response to ensure special vigilance in protecting the integrity
that the WHO was never undermined again. of tobacco-related research.28”
Just a few of the 58 are worth quoting:
Although the above sample of WHO
6. WHO should urge other UN organisations recommendations were in response to Big
to investigate possible tobacco company Tobacco’s attempts to undermine WHO
influences on their decisions and programs, integrity, its direct relevance to other large
and to report their findings publically. industrial interests cannot be ignored, be it the
7. WHO should advocate implementation and power industry or telecommunications.
consistent enforcement of effective conflict Unfortunately it seems that in this case at
Journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine - April 2006 - 3
J. Aust. Coll. Nutr. & Env. Med. Vol. 25 No. 1 (April 2006) page 18
4 - Journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine - April 2006