#462: Killing Science

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #462
---October 5, 1995---
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net
==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
========================Original Source========================

Last week Congress permanently closed down its scientific research arm, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). Although we did not agree with the recommendations of every report that OTA produced during its 23 years of policy analysis, we know that the death of OTA will be an immeasurably great loss to the nation's ability to get the facts straight. The so-called conservatives in this Congress claim to favor public policies based on "good science," yet they are hacking away the infrastructure of laboratories and institutes that, for decades, has done the nation's scientific work. Next on the chopping block is the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST, formerly the National Bureau of Standards), which designs standardized testing and measurement protocols that are relied upon by scientists and engineers throughout the world. This Congress is moving us steadily back toward the dark ages.

On the chopping block as we go to press is the university-based program of basic research within the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The NIEHS Superfund Basic Research Program, now in its ninth year, provides funding to 17 programs at 60 universities and institutions around the country, studying the human health effects of hazardous chemicals in the environment, especially those found at leaking waste dumps.

Congress has already reduced the appropriation for this program, which makes up barely 1% of the Superfund toxic waste cleanup effort. But now the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Hazardous Materials, chaired by Rep. Michael Oxley of Ohio's 4th District, is refusing to reauthorize the program entirely, thus killing it dead. Mr. Oxley's position is that Superfund money should only be used for cleanup, not for any "extraneous" uses like determining how clean our cleanups need to be, and why. Like other so-called "conservatives" who claim they want policies based on "good science," Mr. Oxley reveals his true intentions as he prevents any "good science" from being funded and carried out.

Looking at some of last year's research highlights produced by the Superfund research program, one can appreciate Mr. Oxley's fear of what good science will reveal: [1]

** Researchers determined the dose-response relationship for benzene down to doses as low as those received by ordinary people. Millions of Americans are exposed to small amounts of benzene when, for example, they pump their own gasoline. These benzene experiments strongly suggest that a cancer risk from benzene is present even at very low doses. With millions of people exposed to benzene every day, it seems important to know that benzene really does cause cancer.

** Other investigations demonstrated for the first time in laboratory animals that benzene exposure, which has been associated with leukemia and aplastic anemia in humans and animals, is also mutagenic; that is, it causes inheritable genetic changes which can affect the next generation, the next after that, and so on.

** Researchers showed that several biological markers (subtle observable changes in a person) can be used to detect probable chromium exposure in humans living near places where chromium wastes have been dumped. Researchers studied Jersey City, N.J., and surrounding Hudson County where corporate polluters dumped chromium wastes on the ground for decades. Such research should make it easier to sue corporate polluters for exposure to toxics.

** Researchers developed a test to detect a single molecule of a cancer-associated chromosomal rearrangement in the presence of DNA from a million normal human cells. This work offers the possibility of very sensitive detection of the ability of chemicals to cause chromosomal rearrangements as an indicator of their cancer-causing potential.

** Researchers are studying the neurological and immune-system effects of drinking water containing mercury compounds. Early results indicate that even a small dose of methyl-mercury, such as 5 ppm [parts per million] in drinking water, impairs neurological, endocrine (hormone), and immune-system functions in animals. This corresponds to a daily consumption of 0.3 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) of body weight which is smaller than the "safe" dose of 0.48 mg/kg body weight indicated by the World Health Organization. In other words, mercury is even more dangerous than formerly believed.

** A large epidemiologic study examined the respiratory disease hazards of susceptible individuals living near toxic waste sites and industrial facilities. Analysis of interim data has provided important information on the association between asthma status (active or inactive) and exposure to irritants --active asthmatics have been found to suffer an adverse effect on lung function resulting from irritant chemical exposure (after adjustment for smoking). Asthma is increasing each year in the U.S. population, and annual production of toxic chemicals is increasing as well. Could these two trends be related? It would be important to know.

** Researchers demonstrated a high degree of correspondence between laboratory and field-test results of immune-system toxicity in dogs exposed to industrial PCBs [polychlorinated biphenyls]. Not only have these studies clarified effects of PCBs on the immune system, but they have sparked a number of spin-off studies involving the thyroid, lymphocyte (white blood cell) development, and brain function. These studies help clarify how PCBs affect behavior, physiology, and response to infectious disease, in addition to environmentally-induced threats such as cancer. Efforts to date have provided a key step in validating laboratory immune-system toxicity observations with field studies of animal health.

** In a study comparing effects of perinatal (near the time of birth) vs. adult exposure to PCBs, researchers have found that toxic effects on the brain occur in completely opposite ways. In adults, ortho-PCBs reduce brain dopamine levels while dioxin-like coplanar-PCBs have no such effect. (Dopamine is an important natural chemical in the brain.) However, following perinatal exposure, dioxin-like PCBs elevate brain dopamine concentrations and alter the behavior of exposed female offspring while ortho-PCBs reduce brain dopamine concentrations. Thus, PCB exposures have opposite effects, depending on the age at exposure and the type of PCBs to which the organism is exposed. These results suggest that PCBs may not only directly affect nerve function, but may also alter steroid hormone function during a baby's development.

** Some of the most interesting and important Superfund research involves the role of estrogens and estrogen-like chemicals that seem to interfere with the reproductive system of fish, birds, and mammals, probably including humans. Estrogens are female sex hormones.

A study of sea gulls on Santa Barbara Island, not far from Los Angeles, in 1977 revealed bizarre gull behavior: female gulls were pairing up and sharing nests. In 1981, bird toxicologist Michael Fry published a study showing that, by injecting a small amount of DDT into bird eggs, he could produce hermaphroditic male birds --that is, male birds with the sex organs of both a male and a female. Fry's work met with skepticism back in 1981, but in the subsequent decade wildlife experts worldwide reported declining birth rates, hermaphroditic offspring, lowered sperm counts, and deformities of the testicles of fish, panthers, alligators, and other animals in polluted habitats. [2]Timothy Gross, a wildlife endocrinologist (hormone specialist) at the University of Florida in Gainesville, says, "If you look at people, the same pollutants are in our bodies. What is a safe level? We don't know. But I'd be a pretty naive scientist to conclude there couldn't be the same effects in humans." [3]

The possible effects of estrogen-like chemicals on humans are now thought to include prostate cancer and testicular cancer [4]in men, and perhaps breast cancer in women. [5] Prostate cancer has been steadily increasing in the U.S. in recent years, especially among older men; it strikes 244,000 men each year in the U.S., and kills about 40,000. Breast cancer strikes 183,000 American women each year and kills about 46,240. One out of every 8 women gets breast cancer, and one out of every 7 men gets prostate cancer. Because men with undeveloped testes, and castrated men, rarely develop prostate cancer, researchers began to suspect that sex hormones circulating in the blood might affect prostate cancer. "The evidence has since been stacking up to form an alarming picture that paints estrogen [female sex hormone] and testosterone [male sex hormone] as cancer culprits," says a recent issue of ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES, [4]published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [NIEHS], a staid scientific organization that does not use the word "alarming" lightly. Estrogens and estrogen-mimicking industrial chemicals in the environment have now been shown to alter testosterone levels in men. Thus the wildlife research supported by Superfund money has begun to pay off with a better understanding of major killer diseases. "We're relying on Superfund money for research," says wildlife-and-hormone specialist Timothy Gross at University of Florida. "And who knows what will happen to that? Congress now has a vendetta against lots of this environmental research," he says. [3]

Indeed, people calling themselves "conservatives" in Congress are determined to cut off the funding for this line of research. In their mind, the only good science is no science. Without federal funding, this research will cease because the private sector has no interest in showing how industrial discharges may be contributing to the nation's steadily-rising burden of cancer, diabetes, birth defects, endometriosis, and infertility.

Now a Congressman from Ohio is leading the charge to kill this important health research program. Mr. Oxley might change his mind if he received letters or phone calls from people in his district, who hold the power to end his political career. In addition, calls from outside his district might help, too. Mr. Oxley represents 11 counties (Allen, Auglaize, Crawford, Hancock, Hardin, Knox, Logan, Marion, Morrow, Richland and Wyandot), with the district's four most populous cities being Lima, Mansfield, Marion, and Findlay (Mr. Oxley's home town). His phone number in D.C. is: (202) 225-2676; fax: (202) 226-1160. Mail: 2233 Rayburn Building, Washington, D.C. 20515.

 --Peter Montague

===============

[1] Highlights of Superfund research can be found on the World Wide Web at http://www.niehs.nih.gov/sbrp/1994-hig.htm.

[2] Recent work on estrogen-like chemicals and wildlife appears in "Wildlife Development," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 103, Supplement 4 (May, 1995).

[3] Gross quoted in Amanda Spake, "Is the modern world giving us cancer?" HEALTH (October, 1995), pg. 55.

[4] Renee Twombly, "Assault on the Male," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 103, No. 9 (September, 1995), pgs. 802-805.

[5] Devra Lee Davis and H. Leon Bradlow, "Can Environmental Estrogens Cause Breast Cancer?" SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN Vol. 273, No. 4 (October, 1995), pgs. 166-172.

Descriptor terms: research funding; superfund; congress; science; ota; benzene; chromium; congressman michael oxley; cancer; mercury; asthma; hazardous wastes; pcbs; dogs; estrogens; hormones; immune system; nervous system; endocrine system; endocrine disruptors; wildlife; hermaphroditism; fish; gulls; birds; panthers; alligators; prostate cancer; testicular cancer; breast cancer; morbidity statistics; mortality statistics; testosterone; niehs

#487: Our Stolen Future--Part 2

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #487
March 28, 1996
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net
========== RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
================== Original Source ==================

Humans and other animals (fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals) all have three great internal networks that coordinate growth, development, and behavior:

** the nervous system (brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nerves);

** the immune system (a myriad of specialized cells and tissues that protect us against bacteria, viruses, and cancers); and

** the endocrine system, which controls and coordinates the body by sending chemical messages (hormones) through the blood stream, turning on and off various functions throughout the body.

The human body is more than a mere collection of 50 trillion individual cells because our cells work together. Working together requires coordination, which requires communication.

Nerves are just one avenue of communication--the one employed for rapid, discrete messages, such as a quick instruction to a hand, to move away from a hot stove. A large part of the body's internal communication and control is carried out via the bloodstream, where hormones and other chemical messengers move about, carrying signals that not only govern sex and reproduction but also coordinate organs and tissues that work together to keep the body functioning properly.

Hormones --chemical messengers --began to be understood early in this century. Nobel prizes were awarded for the discovery of insulin in 1923, and for work on sex hormones in 1939. The best-known hormones are estrogen (the main female sex hormone) and testosterone (the main male sex hormone) but by 1987 more than 100 hormones had been identified in humans and higher mammals. [1]

The endocrine (hormone) system plays an important role starting early in life's beginnings. It is the endocrine system that controls development of the embryo. The embryo begins as a single fertilized egg cell, which divides again and again, creating new cells; these cells in turn "differentiate" into different kinds of cells, thus creating a brain, eyes, fingers, genitalia, and so forth. All of these processes are controlled by hormones.

In 1950, researchers at Syracuse University exposed young roosters to DDT and showed that their testicles only grew to 18 percent of normal size. [2] The researchers concluded, "These findings suggest that DDT may exert an estrogen-like action..."

A 1963 study in the JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE showed that cysts and cancers developed in mice treated with estrogen as newborns. In that 1963 study, author Thelma Dunn warned that her work showed "the vulnerability of the immature animal to the harmful effects of exposure to a naturally occurring hormone." [3]

The following year, in 1964, two authors writing in the JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE reported changes in vaginal tissues in mice after exposure to estrogen shortly after birth. They warned, "We feel that abnormal hormonal environments during early postnatal (and antenatal) life should not be underestimated as to their possible contribution to abnormal changes of neoplastic [cancer] significance later in life." [4]

These early warnings were ignored. From about 1940 onward, roughly 1000 new chemicals were introduced into commercial channels each year (a practice that continues today). No one asked whether any of these chemicals might exert an estrogen-like effect or might in some other way disrupt the chemical-messaging system on which we all depend for health and well-being. Still today, no one in any official capacity is asking.

Starting in the 1950s, papers began to appear in scientific journals showing declines in wildlife populations, resulting from exposures to certain pesticides. Reports of odd behavior began to appear as well --pairs of female gulls (so-called "gay gulls") sharing nests; pairs of terns (birds on the Great Lakes) failing to sit on their eggs, neglecting to defend their nests against predators. Alligators with penises so small they couldn't reproduce. As time passed, hundreds of such studies accumulated from many parts of the world.

However, it wasn't until 1991 that some scientists began to see a pattern in these studies. In July of that year, Theo Colborn, a biologist with the World Wildlife Fund, invited a group of 20 scientists to discuss their research. To their surprise, the scientists all agreed that, in their individual research, they were seeing evidence that industrial chemicals in the environment were harming the endocrine systems of fish, birds and mammals. They issued a consensus document, now known as the Wingspread statement (see REHW #263, #264), which began, [5]"We are certain of the following:

"A large number of man-made chemicals that have been released into the environment, as well as a few natural ones, have the potential to disrupt the endocrine system of animals, including humans. Among these are the persistent, bioaccumulative, organohalogen compounds that include some pesticides (fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides) and industrial chemicals, other synthetic products, and some metals." [An organohalogen is a chemical that contains carbon attached to a halogen such as chlorine; there are now 15,000 chlorine-containing organic compounds in commercial use.]

The Wingspread statement went on,

"Many wildlife populations are already affected by these compounds. The impacts include thyroid dysfunction [impaired or abnormal functioning] in birds and fish; decreased fertility in birds, fish, shellfish, and mammals; decreased hatching success in birds, fish and turtles; gross birth deformities in birds, fish and turtles; metabolic abnormalities [impaired or abnormal use of energy, manufacture of tissue, or handling of resulting wastes] in birds, fish, and mammals; behavioral abnormalities in birds; demasculinization and feminization in male fish, birds, and mammals; defeminization and masculinization of female fish and birds; and compromised [impaired] immune systems in birds and mammals." This was the first time anyone had ever put two and two together and had concluded that industrial chemicals are interfering with hormones in wildlife and, by analogy, probably in humans.

Since 1991, the journals have continued to swell with new studies showing how industrial chemicals, in low concentrations, can disrupt hormone messages.

In some instances, industrial chemicals behave like (mimic) hormones, fooling the body into responding as if natural hormones are present when in fact they are not, thus sending fake messages. In other instances, industrial chemicals block (partially or fully) the action of natural hormones, thus interfering in the receipt of messages. In other instances, industrial chemicals block the production of hormones, thus preventing the sending of messages. In still other instances, industrial chemicals interfere with the body's normal ability to break down and eliminate hormones, thus resulting in too many messages being present simultaneously and for too long.

No matter where you live today --whether in New York City, or on a remote island in the Arctic Ocean, anyone willing to put up the $2000 for testing will find more than 250 synthetic industrial chemicals in their body. [6]DDT was first reported in human milk in 1951 and by the early 1980s, 192 different industrial chemicals (pesticides, solvents, etc.) were measurable in mothers' milk. [7]

These industrial chemicals are routinely present in our tissues at levels measured in parts per billion (or, in extreme instances, parts per million). On the other hand, naturally-occurring hormones often do their work at levels that are measured in parts per trillion, one thousand times lower than parts per billion and a million times lower that parts per million. [8]

Furthermore, there is evidence that industrial chemicals at exceedingly low levels can combine together to produce additive effects. Dr. Ana Soto at Tufts University combined 10 hormone disrupters, each at one-tenth of the dose required to produce a minimal response; she found that the combination produced a response. [9] Thus combinations of chemicals must be taken into account when we try to learn how much "effective exposure" we are getting to hormone-disrupting chemicals.

Is there any evidence that humans have been harmed? Yes, there is. The medical profession exposed millions of women to drugs called thalidomide and DES (diethylstilbestrol) before it was learned that birth defects might result from such exposures. The DES exposures, particularly, provided compelling evidence that humans respond to hormone-disrupting chemicals the way other mammals do. Studies of humans exposed to PCBs (a class of hormone-disrupting industrial chemicals) shown mental and physical stunting. (See REHW #295, #372.) (We will review additional human evidence in future issues.)

OUR STOLEN FUTURE, Theo Colborn's new book, [5]presents evidence and hypotheses pointing toward a variety of effects in humans: reduced sperm count; increases in cancer of the prostate, testicles, and female breast; diminished intelligence; reduced capacity to pay attention; increased aggression and violence. Are these things all proven? They are not. Are they plausible enough and important enough to warrant thoughtful preventive action by prudent people? They definitely are.

What lessons can we learn from all this? Many. But they will to wait. For the next two weeks, we will focus on the institution that allowed our future to be stolen --indeed, made it all but certain that our future would be stolen. Stay tuned.

                                                                    
 --Peter Montague

===============

[1] Anthony W. Norman and Gerald Litwack, HORMONES (San Diego, Ca.: Academic Press, 1987), pg. xi. And see Appendix A.

[2] H. Burlington and V.F. Lindeman, "Effects of DDT on Testes and Secondary Sex Characters of White Leghorn Cockerels," Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine Vol. 74 (1950), pgs. 48-51. Even earlier, the sexual development of mice had been disrupted by exposure to estrogen: R. Greene and others, "Experimental Intersexuality: The Paradoxical Effects of Estrogens on the Sexual Development of the Female Rat," ANATOMICAL RECORD Vol. 74 No. 4 (1939), pgs. 429-438. And: R. Greene and others, "Experimental Intersexuality: Modification of Sexual Development of the White Rat With a Synthetic Estrogen," PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY FOR EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE Vol. 41 (1939), pgs. 169-170.

[3] T. Dunn and A. Green, "Cysts of the Epididymis, Cancer of the Cervix, Granular Cell Myoblastoma, and Other Lesions After Estrogen Injection in Newborn Mice," JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE Vol. 31 (1963), pgs. 425-438.

[4] N. Takasugi and H. Bern, "Tissue Changes in Mice with Persistent Vaginal Cornification Induced by Early Postnatal Treatment With Estrogen," JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE Vol. 33 (1964), pgs. 855-864.

[5] Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski and John Peterson Myers, OUR STOLEN FUTURE (N.Y.: Dutton, 1996), pgs. 251-260 reprints the Wingspread statement.

[6] J.S. Stanley, [Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo.], BROAD SCAN ANALYSIS OF HUMAN ADIPOSE TISSUE. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. VOLUME 1. FINAL REPORT. [EPA/560/5-86/035] (Springfield, Va: National Technical Information Service [NTIS No. PB 87-177218/REB]. See also VOLUME II, NTIS No. PB 87-177226. And see: Kristin Bryan and Theo Colborn, "Organochlorine Endocrine Disruptors in Human Tissue," in Theo Colborn and Coralie Clement, editors, CHEMICALLY-INDUCED ALTERATIONS IN SEXUAL AND FUNCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: THE WILDLIFE/HUMAN CONNECTION [Advances in Modern Environmental Toxicology Vol. XXI] (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Scientific Publishing Co., 1992), pgs. 365-394.

[7] E.P. Laug and others, "Occurrence of DDT in Human Milk," ARCHIVES OF INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE Vol. 3 (1951), pgs. 245-246. And see: Edo D. Pellizzari and others, "Purgeable Organic Compounds in Mother's Milk." BULLETIN OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND TOXICOLOGY Vol. 28 (1982), pgs. 322-328, reporting 192 different industrial chemicals in samples of human milk from New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Louisiana.

[8] In their Appendix A, Norman and Litwack, cited above in note 1, list the levels at which naturally-occurring hormones are present in human blood. Many occur in the low parts per trillion range.

[9] Soto's work is reported in Paul Cotton, "Environmental Estrogenic Agents Area of Concern [sic]," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Vol. 271, No. 6 (February 9, 1994), pgs. 414-415.

Descriptor terms: our stolen future; theo colborn; john peterson myers; dianne dumanoski; nervous system; immune system; endocrine system; hormones; development; embryo; estrogen; endocrine disrupters; wingspread statement; pesticides; thyroid disease; infertility; wildlife; fish; birds; mammals; synergism; additive effects; ana soto; book reviews;

#486: Our Stolen Future--Part 1

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #486
March 21, 1996
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net
========== RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
================== Original Source ==================

The NEW YORK TIMES week declared war on the theory and evidence that synthetic chemicals, such as dioxin, interfere with hormones, causing harm in wildlife and humans--a story we have been following since 1991.[1] Under a banner headline in Tuesday's Science Times section, [2]TIMES writer Gina Kolata reviewed the new book by Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski, and John Peterson ("Pete") Myers, OUR STOLEN FUTURE. OUR STOLEN FUTURE is based on a review of literally thousands of scientific studies going back 60 years. [3] The main idea in the book is that synthetic (human-created) chemicals may be interfering with the hormones that control and regulate growth, health and behavior in wildlife and humans, leading to birth defects, problems of sexual development, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and even mental problems like attention deficit disorder, reduced IQ, and violent behavior. Both Colborn and Myers hold Ph.D. degrees in zoology and are fully-qualified scientists, yet Ms. Kolata's review begins this way:

"In a warning supported by allies who include Robert Redford and Vice President Al Gore, some environmentalists are asserting that humans and wildlife are facing a new and serious threat from synthetic chemicals."

Thus in her opening paragraph, Ms. Kolata managed to trivialize the issue and discredit the authors by giving the impression that (a) "some environmentalists" are the source of the data; (b) perhaps some other environmentalists don't buy it; (c) the book's main supporters are politicians and movie actors; (d) scientists aren't in the picture.

Not until the fourth paragraph do we learn that Theo Colborn is herself a scientist, but by that time we've already been told that the message of OUR STOLEN FUTURE is "controversial," and that "the factual basis of the book's alarms... have been refuted by careful studies," and that co-author Pete Myers heads "an environmental group" (which is Ms. Kolata's description of the W. Alton Jones Foundation in Charlottesville, Va.). Ms. Kolata never does get around to telling her readers that Dr. Myers is a fully-credentialed scientist. Nor does she describe or name a single "careful study" that refutes any of the premises of OUR STOLEN FUTURE.

Ms. Kolata's review plunges downhill from there. It is not until the sixth paragraph that we learn, "besides Mr. Gore's support, OUR STOLEN FUTURE has been endorsed by several biologists and toxicologists, who say the book deserves to be heeded." Even then Ms. Kolata never names or quotes a single biologist or toxicologist who supports OUR STOLEN FUTURE. Instead, she devotes long paragraphs to four scientists who, she says, are critical of the theory that synthetic chemicals can disrupt hormones and thus cause harm to wildlife and humans.

However, even in quoting these contrarian scientists, Ms. Kolata deceives and misleads her readers by selectively distorting their views.

For example, she quotes Dr. Michael Gallo of Rutgers University saying that OUR STOLEN FUTURE is "hypothesis masked as fact." Yet on May 15, 1990, the NEW YORK TIMES itself quoted Dr. Gallo to quite different effect. [4] Here is the context: The writer of that 1990 story (TIMES staffer Jon R. Luoma) said, "Research now appears to have established that [dioxins] can affect animals and humans by mimicking steroid hormones, which are themselves extremely potent chemicals."

Luoma concluded, in that 1990 TIMES story, that the symptoms of dioxin exposure "range from suppression of the immune system to striking disruptions in cell growth and differentiation, particularly in fetal development." This is precisely the message of OUR STOLEN FUTURE.

Then Luoma quoted Dr. Michael Gallo, Rutgers University, saying TCDD [dioxin] "is as potent as any hormone" and "it doesn't take much hormone, or dioxin, to have a tremendous effect." And Dr. Gallo said, "From a toxicological point of view, nothing we've learned has caused us to back away from the idea that these [dioxins] are very, very potent chemicals." Does Gina Kolata not read the NEW YORK TIMES?

In her zeal to undermine the credibility of OUR STOLEN FUTURE, Ms. Kolata then quotes Dr. Stephen Safe, of Texas A&M University pooh-poohing Colborn and Myers's evidence that synthetic chemicals interfere with hormones in humans.

But back in May, 1990, the TIMES quoted Stephen Safe to quite different effect. Here is the context:

Jon Luoma's May 15, 1990, TIMES story pointed out that animal studies have shown that dioxin has a "breathtaking toxicity" and in laboratory animals dioxin causes a broad spectrum of toxic responses. "With laboratory animals, it seemed as if dioxin caused just about any effect you can think of," Steven Safe, a professor of toxicology at Texas A&M University, said. "You name it and [dioxin] did it, and at extraordinarily low doses," he said. "New research has not reversed these findings, it has merely helped explain them," Dr. Safe said. Luoma then went on to point out that, "...[S]tudies of humans exposed accidentally to TCDD [dioxin] have shown unusually high levels of enzymes that are typically induced by steroid hormones, a strong clue that a hormone-like response is triggered in humans exposed to dioxin as well." This is precisely what OUR STOLEN FUTURE is about, except that now dioxin is not the only known culprit: 50 additional synthetic chemicals have been shown to have the power to disrupt hormones. 

Does Gina Kolata not read the NEW YORK TIMES?

In her zeal to discredit OUR STOLEN FUTURE, Ms. Kolata sets up Theo Colborn, then knocks her down by quoting another scientist who apparently dismisses Colborn's argument that synthetic chemicals mimic hormones and affect the brain. Watch how this plays out to discredit Colborn:

Ms. Kolata writes: "Asked for the strongest, most convincing evidence that endocrine disruptors are affecting humans, Dr. Colborn said it was studies indicating that these chemicals are causing hyperactivity in children. 'The evidence is just building up,' she said, citing animal studies.

"She added that she also worried that endocrine-disrupting chemicals were causing a decline in intelligence and said that animal studies showed that such chemicals could weaken short-term memory in rodents.

"'If you have problems with short-term memory, you have problems with intelligence,' she said. 'Remember, the thyroid fits in here,' she said. 'There are thyroid problems in practically every fish in the Great Lakes. And thyroidologists say that it takes just the slightest shift during critical times in the development of the brain and you will have behavioral problems and intelligence problems.'

"But Dr. Maria I. New, chief of pediatric endocrinology at New York Hospital-Cornell University Medical Center in New York, said there was no evidence that learning disabilities, violence or a drop in I.Q. had anything to do with prenatal exposure to estrogens or endocrine-disrupting chemicals."

NO EVIDENCE, says Dr. Maria I. New. Sounds like an open and shut case, doesn't it? Colborn must be wrong: there must be no evidence that these hormones can affect the brain.

But wait. Back on May 3, 1994, TIMES writer Natalie Angier quoted the same Dr. Maria I. New saying that she was conducting research to determine whether the amount of androgen (male sex hormone) in a female fetus affected a woman's neurological [nervous system] development. "There are definitely effects of androgens on the brain," Dr. New said. [5] Does Gina Kolata not read the NEW YORK TIMES?

In her zeal to discredit OUR STOLEN FUTURE, Ms. Kolata goes to absurd extremes. She paraphrases Pete Myers saying "the evidence was sufficient to press for at least a worldwide ban on DDT and further restrictions on PCBs" --DDT and PCBs being two of the best-documented and most harmful hormone-disrupting chemicals. But Ms. Kolata won't let Dr. Myers hold even this modest position. She insists that "[S]everal leading scientists view such position as premature at best." Premature to advocate a global ban on DDT? The U.S. banned DDT 25 years ago, in 1971. Premature to restrict PCBs? The U.S. severely restricted the use of PCBs 20 years ago, in 1976. Ms. Kolata writes that these "leading scientists" say that the case for ridding the world of DDT and PCBs "seems fueled more by hyperbole than facts and that many of the claims of demonstrable harm, when examined, turn out to be a house of cards."

Does Ms. Kolata not read the NEW YORK TIMES? 

Does she not even read stories she herself has published previously in the TIMES? On August 2, 1988, Ms. Kolata reported in the TIMES that an industrial accident in Taiwan in 1979 exposed a group of people to PCBs and those exposures "have caused an epidemic of birth defects." [6] Is it not simple common sense to advocate restrictions on a chemical that can cause an epidemic of birth defects in humans?

Gina Kolata's review of OUR STOLEN FUTURE is unfair, biased, deceptive, and distorted, clearly aimed at discrediting all of the book's ideas, even its most unremarkable, mainstream ideas. It reminds me of the crude hatchet jobs done on Rachel Carson's SILENT SPRING back in 1962. Ms. Kolata's review raises the obvious question, who in the chemical industry "got to" Ms. Kolata and how did they do it?

But the more important question is, why did the editors at the TIMES assign such a lightweight to review such an important book? OUR STOLEN FUTURE is a major work with a profoundly important message. Anyone who reads the NEW YORK TIMES knows that the issues raised in this book have been described and discussed at serious scientific meetings, and in the columns of the TIMES itself, for some years now. [7] To allow a bigoted reviewer to suggest that these ideas have no basis in fact and have little or no support in the scientific community is a desecration of the journalistic values that the TIMES is committed to upholding. Mr. Kolata's review is unfair, false, distorted, biased, and misleading. Everyone ---I mean EVERYONE --should read this book, and everyone should give a copy to their family doctor. OUR STOLEN FUTURE is well written and easily understood. It deserves a fair reading --which Gina Kolata did not have the intellectual or moral capacity to give it. The TIMES can do better. Much better.

                                                                    
--Peter Montague

===============

[1] See REHW 263, #264, #322, #323, #343, #364, #365, #372, #377, #432, #438, #446, #447, #448.

[2] Gina Kolata, "Chemicals That Mimic Hormones Stir Alarm and Debate," NEW YORK TIMES March 19, 1995, pg. C1. And: Gina Kolata, "Sperm Counts: Some Experts See a Fall, Others See Poor Data," NEW YORK TIMES March 19, 1995, pg. C1.

[3] Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski, and John Peterson Myers, OUR STOLEN FUTURE (N.Y.: Dutton, 1996).

[4] Jon R. Luoma, "Scientists Are Unlocking Secrets of Dioxin's Devastating Power," NEW YORK TIMES May 15, 1990, pg. C4.

[5] Natalie Angier, "Male Hormone Molds Women, Too, In Mind and Body," NEW YORK TIMES May 3, 1994, pgs. C1, C13.

[6] Gina Kolata, "PCB Exposure Linked to Birth Defects in Taiwan," NEW YORK TIMES August 2, 1988, page unknown.

[7] See, for example, items cited in footnotes 1 through 6; and see Jon R. Luoma, "New Effect of Pollutants: Hormone Mayhem," NEW YORK TIMES March 24, 1992, pg. C1.

Descriptor terms: endocrine disrupters; dioxin; hormones; endocrine system; new york times; gina kolata; theo colborn; dianne dumanoski; john peterson myers; pete myers; book reviews; journalism; journalistic ethics;

#491: Shifting the Burden Of Proof

=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #491
---April 25, 1996---
News and resources for environmental justice.
==========
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net
========== RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com ================== Original Source ==================

For most of history, humans were so puny, compared to the rest of nature, that the speed of technological change didn't matter. But since 1945, humans have become a major force that nature must reckon with. Human activities now mobilize (pull from the deep earth and redistribute into surface soils and water) much larger quantities of many minerals than all the rest of nature put together. In other words, humans dwarf the rest of nature when it comes to moving nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur, arsenic, mercury, lead, and a dozen other metals. In addition, we have invented and dumped into the environment enormous quantities of synthetic chemicals that nature does not ordinarily create. As a result, we puny humans are changing the chemical balance of the soils and waters of the entire planet. We are now waiting (without paying close attention) to learn what effects these changes will have on wildlife and on human health. [1]

As we saw last week, we are flying blind (see REHW #490). When we deploy new chemical technologies (and genetic engineering technologies), we have little or no idea what the consequences will be. We learn about the consequences by trial and error, exposing wildlife and humans and then waiting until harm becomes evident. Usually, we do not even study the exposed individuals in any systematic way. Wildlife may or may not be studied. In the case of humans, we almost invariably wait until they notice symptoms in themselves. Then we generally ignore them until they become desperately angry and get themselves organized into a political force. Then we may begin to look for harm, using crude techniques like epidemiology, which can only discover problems that affect a large proportion of the study population. [2]Such studies take years to complete; meanwhile exposure to the chemical continues. This is the "prove harm" philosophy of public health protection and it forms the basis of the public health system in the civilized world today. It is not a philosophy based on prevention. Victims have to prove harm before controls can be initiated.

After harm becomes evident, we may (or may not) take regulatory steps to control the source of the problem. Although corporate polluters complain bitterly that they are being strangled by environmental regulations, in truth, all of the nation's environmental laws, taken together, impose controls on only about 350 individual chemicals. There are 71,000 chemicals in commercial use today, so our regulatory system imposes controls on one-half of one percent of the chemicals currently in use. In other words, 99.5% percent of chemicals are entirely unregulated.

Under the "prove harm" pollution control system, the way we learn about chemical problems is by unpleasant surprises. We learn after the fact that we have begun to heat up the planet by our emission of greenhouse gases. We learn after the fact that our refrigerators and air conditioners have eaten holes as big as the United States in the atmosphere over the north and south poles. We watch cancer rates steadily rise and after about three decades of this, we begin to scratch our heads. This is the way the "prove harm" public health protection system works.

The most recent tidal wave of bad news has to do with hormones. The new book, OUR STOLEN FUTURE, describes how scientists during this decade have pieced together the latest threat to the well-being of wildlife and humans: many industrial chemicals we have been dumping into the ecosystem in huge quantities for years are now thought to interfere with hormones. [3] (See REHW #263, #264, #486, #487, and #490). Hormones are natural chemical messengers that flow through the bloodstream, providing chemical instructions that control growth, development and behavior in birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, including humans. No one knows how many of the 71,000 chemicals now in use can actually interfere with hormones; so far, 51 chemicals have been shown to have such an effect. The range of problems that may be caused by hormone disruption is large: cancer, birth defects, confusion in sexual preference (seen in wildlife and in laboratory animals), poor parenting (seen in wildlife), stunted growth, reproductive failure, diminished sperm count, endometriosis (a painful disease of the menstrual tissues), ectopic (tubal) pregnancies, damage to the immune system, impaired short-term memory, decreased ability to pay attention, diminished intelligence, violent behavior--the list is long and unpleasant. There is no doubt that hormone-related damage is occurring in some wildlife populations. The case for damage to humans is less firm; however, it seems certain that this is a serious problem that the public health system must now gear up to define and then begin to solve. [4]

The main question raised by this most recent tsunami of bad news is this: given that we are flying blind, what public policies could we adopt that might reduce the number of unpleasant surprises we leave to our children?

The problem breaks down into two parts: (1) what should we do about existing chemicals? And (2) what should we do about newly-created chemicals?

For existing chemicals, OUR STOLEN FUTURE offers some useful suggestions:

** Greatly reduce the number of chemicals on the market. OUR STOLEN FUTURE describes an effort to find environmentally benign chemicals for use in the textile business. A group of researchers examined 7500 chemicals used to dye or process fabrics. They eliminated chemicals that were toxic, persistent, mutagenic, carcinogenic, or known to interfere with hormones. Of the 7500 chemicals, only 34 passed all the tests. As a result, an environmentally benign fabric is now being marketed. [5]

** Reduce the number of chemicals in products. Make products simpler.

** Make and market only chemicals that can be readily detected at relevant levels in the real world with current technology.

** Restrict production to only products that have a completely defined chemical makeup and disallow products containing unpredictable mixtures of chemicals. Such mixtures --for example the 209 PCBs [polychlorinated biphenyls] --are difficult to test for safety and to track after they are released into the environment.

These are useful suggestions for altering our approach to EXISTING CHEMICALS. But the issues involved are very complicated and hard for most people to understand. A campaign to achieve these changes would quickly bog down in debates between "dueling experts." The public would be left out and would sleep through the debates. EXISTING CHEMICALS, therefore, offer limited opportunities for initiating needed changes.

On the other hand, NEW CHEMICALS offer much greater opportunities.

** OUR STOLEN FUTURE points out (pg. 219) that we need to reverse the burden of proof for safety of new chemicals. Presently new chemicals are considered innocent until proven guilty. This should be reversed. New chemicals should be assumed harmful until they have been thoroughly tested for all the kinds of harm we presently know about. (This will still not prove that any chemical is "safe" because history tells us that, in the future, new kinds of harm will become apparent, and furthermore we can never test for all the possible interactions between existing chemicals and new ones.) [6]

Requiring that new chemicals be thoroughly tested, then banning the bad ones, is the essence of pollution prevention. Despite this, most corporate polluters --even those claiming to be green as grass --would almost certainly oppose it. A campaign to make this one fundamental change --to reverse the burden of proof for chemical safety --might quickly reveal the amorality and the raw power of corporate polluters. This would be a win-win battle, well worth taking on. Even if such a campaign did not initially succeed in reversing the burden of proof, it might lead to wider understanding that (a) corporations cannot reform themselves and (b) that the corporate form itself will have to be addressed before we can significantly improve chemical safety. (See REHW #489, #488, #455, and #449.)

Strategically, it makes good sense to start with a campaign to reverse the burden of proof for chemical safety. It is an issue that everyone can understand. It's simple: if a chemical hasn't been thoroughly tested, it's assumed dangerous and can't be manufactured. The morality is clear: every baby has the right to be born free of poisonous chemicals. No corporation has the right to chemically trespass, to penetrate our bodies with poisons. Pharmaceutical drugs have to be thoroughly tested before they can be sold; for the same reasons, all chemicals should have to be thoroughly tested before they can be sold. Who would oppose this change? Few people have anything at stake if a chemical gets banned before it is ever manufactured. Therefore, most people have no reason to oppose thorough testing of new chemicals. A campaign to shift the burden of proof for chemical safety would starkly expose the power relationship between the public and the corporate polluters. Corporations campaigning for the right to release untested poisons into the environment would be shooting themselves in the foot.

True, shifting the burden of proof for chemical safety would slow the speed of chemical innovation --but that's part of the point. Evidence accumulated during the past 25 years (see REHW #490) strongly suggests that, when you are flying blind, you should fly more slowly than we are presently doing. That way, even if you hit a mountain, there still might be a chance for survival. 

--Peter Montague

===============

[1] For example, see Jerome O. Nriagu and Jozef M. Pacyna, "Quantitative assessment of worldwide contamination of air, water, and soil by trace metals," NATURE Vol. 333 (May 12, 1988), pgs. 134-139. And see REHW #155. And see David L. MacIntosh and others, "Dietary Exposures to Selected Metals and Pesticides," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 104, No. 2 (February, 1996), pgs. 202-209.

[2] In principle, epidemiology can discern small effects, but this requires studying large groups which, under most circumstances, is not practical.

[3] Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski and John Peterson Myers, OUR STOLEN FUTURE (N.Y.: Dutton, 1996).

[4] See, for example, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES SUPPLEMENTS Vol. 103 Supplement 4 (May, 1995) devoted to the subject of "Wildlife Development." And see ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES SUPPLEMENTS Vol. 103 Supplement 7 (October, 1995) devoted to the subject of "Estrogens in the Environment." And see ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES SUPPLEMENTS Vol. 103 Supplement 9 (December, 1995) devoted to the subject of "Great Lakes and Human Health." ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES is a peer-reviewed journal published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), a federal agency.

[5] OUR STOLEN FUTURE, cited above in note 3, pgs. 226-229. To learn more about the environmentally benign fabric, call Design Tex in New York [(212) 886-8100] and request information about the McDonough Collection.]

[6] Present tests are inadequate for defining the various kinds of harm that are possible. To begin with, when a chemical is tested, its metabolites and degradation byproducts should be tested as well. The chemical and its metabolites and degradation byproducts should be subjected to an improved battery of tests which would examine 3 generations of various animals species, with exposure occurring at various times in the life of the first and second generations (because the TIMING of exposure is critical for certain effects to be revealed). The battery of chemical tests should be done in an uncontaminated environment (as is present practice) but also should be done under pseudo-realistic conditions, with the test animals simultaneously exposed to various "background" conditions, such as farmers might endure, or city dwellers, or workers in factories or in offices. By this means, the interactions between a new chemical and existing "background levels" of chemicals might be revealed. If any diminished capacity or altered function in the nervous system, immune system, endocrine (hormone) system or any organ system is revealed during the full battery of tests, or if any disease condition or genetic damage is initiated or promoted by the chemical being tested, of if the chemical is persistent or bioaccumulative (see REHW #378), then the principle of precautionary action would be invoked: given that harm can be reasonably expected or suspected, even before scientific consensus is achieved the new chemical would be abandoned for commercial purposes.

Descriptor terms: technological change; biogeochemical cycles; prove harm philosophy; pollution prevention; regulation; our stolen future; hormone disrupters; endocrine disrupters; endocrine system; .

#364: Dioxin and PCBS Linked To Endometriosis

=======================Electronic Edition========================

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #364
---November 19, 1993---
News and resources for environmental justice.
------
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com =======================Original Source========================

Endometriosis is a mysterious, painful disease that affects 6 to 9 million American women, according to estimates by the Mayo Clinic.[1] Endometriosis occurs exclusively in species that menstruate (humans and non-human primates). The disease occurs when bits of the endometrium (the tissue that lines the uterus) somehow escape the uterus and become implanted on other pelvic organs. Usually the implants occur on the outside of the ovaries, the fallopian tubes, the uterus or its supporting muscles.

The mislocated cells imitate the menstrual cycle, first thickening and then bleeding as menstruation begins. Because the implants are embedded within other tissues, there is nowhere for the blood to go. Blood blisters form, irritating the surrounding tissue, which may create a cyst (sometimes also called a nodule, tumor, lesion, implant, or growth) to encapsulate the blister. The cyst, in turn, may become a scar or an adhesion (abnormal tissue that binds organs together). Scars or adhesions on the ovaries or fallopian tubes can prevent pregnancy.

Typical symptoms of endometriosis include chronic pain, particularly pelvic pain; severe period pain; pain with sex; infertility; painful bowel movements with the period; painful urination or other urinary problems with the period and at other times; chronic fatigue; chemical sensitivities and/or extensive allergies and other allergic diseases; and, sometimes, autoimmune diseases, including Hashimoto's thyroiditis and lupus.

Endometriosis can run in families; it most commonly strikes women between 25 and 49 but it can begin as early as 11. It generally ends with menopause, though estrogen replacement therapy can reactivate the disease.

Although more than 4500 research papers have been published on endometriosis, the cause of the disease remains a mystery.

Now new thinking about endometriosis has been stimulated by research linking dioxin exposure to the disease in rhesus monkeys. In rhesus monkeys, endometriosis develops spontaneously and resembles the human disease both anatomically and clinically. In the rhesus, disease manifestations include growth of cysts and adhesions involving the ovaries, ureters, colon, and urinary bladder, just as in humans.

The recognition of dioxin as a contributor to the disease in rhesus monkeys is considered an exciting breakthrough by scientists who have been studying the disease for two decades or more, unsuccessfully seeking a cause.

The new research reveals a clear dose-response relationship between low levels of dioxin in the diet and development of endometriosis in rhesus monkeys. The more dioxin, the worse the endometriosis, according to experiments conducted at University of Wisconsin and reported this month by Sherry E. Rier and co-workers in the journal, FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED TOXICOLOGY.[2]

A colony of 24 wild [feral] female rhesus monkeys 6 to 10 years of age was obtained in 1977. From 1977 to 1983 the animals were housed at the University of Wisconsin's Biotron; from 1983 to the present, the animals have been housed at the Harlow Primate Lab in Madison, Wisc. In 1977, the monkeys were randomly assigned to 3 groups of 8 animals each. Control animals were not exposed to dioxin, animals in the low-dose group were exposed to 5 parts per trillion (ppt) in their diet and monkeys in the high-dose group were exposed to 25 parts per trillion. Dioxin was administered in the animals' feed for 5 years, from 1977 to 1982. The point of the original research was to see if low doses of dioxin in the diet interfered with reproduction in the rhesus colony.

The dioxin connection to endometriosis was discovered almost by accident. As the researchers themselves wrote, "This study was originally undertaken 15 years ago to investigate the long-term reproductive effects of exposure to dioxin in the rhesus monkey. Twelve years after the initiation of this work, [in 1989], a dioxin-exposed animal died and was noted at autopsy to exhibit widespread endometriosis. In 1990 and 1992, two additional dioxin-treated animals died of severe infiltrating endometriosis. During this time, we became aware that these animals and others in the colony displayed symptoms similar to human disease at the onset of menses, including anorexia [diminished appetite; aversion to food] and behavior consistent with pain. In view of these findings, the present study was performed to document endometriosis in this unique colony of monkeys and to determine whether the severity of the disease was correlated with exposure to dioxin."

This new study describes the 17 live monkeys currently remaining in the colony, plus the 3 monkeys that died of extensive endometriosis and were evaluated at autopsy.

The 17 living monkeys underwent laparoscopy in 1992. Laparoscopy is surgery performed under general anesthesia. A small incision is made in the abdomen, and a thin optical tube is inserted, so that the animal's internal organs can be observed and photographed. In humans, as in monkeys, laparoscopy is the only sure way to diagnose endometriosis because some forms of cancer create the same symptoms.

Among the 20 monkeys, the presence and severity of endometriosis was determined according to human criteria, using the revised American Fertility Society (rAFS) system, which is universally accepted. The rAFS system classifies the severity of endometriosis according to number, size and placement of endometriotic implants and the presence of adhesions. There are 4 stages of the disease: minimal, mild, moderate, and severe.

Among the rhesus monkeys, the incidence of disease directly correlated with dioxin exposure. Endometriosis was present in 71% of the animals treated with 5 ppt dioxin, and in 86% of animals treated with 25 ppt. This compares to 33% of the animals exhibiting disease in the control group.

The severity of the disease was also correlated with the dose of dioxin. According to the severity classification system, control animals not exposed to dioxin exhibited either no disease (4 of 6 animals) or minimal disease (2 of 6 animals). Animals treated with 5 ppt dioxin had no disease (2 of 7 animals), mild disease (1 of 7 animals) or moderate-to-severe disease (3 of 7 animals). Among the animals dosed with 25 ppt, 5 of 7 animals had moderate-to-severe disease and only one was disease-free.

The authors conclude, "The results of these studies demonstrate that chronic exposure to the chemical toxicant dioxin is directly correlated with an increased incidence in the development of endometriosis in rhesus monkeys. As determined by [standardized] scoring systems, stage II [mild], III [moderate], and IV [severe] disease were exclusively found in animals exposed to either 5 or 25 ppt dioxin. Furthermore, the severity of disease, as reflected by the [standardized severity] score, was positively correlated with the daily and cumulative dose of dioxin administered."

The reproductive history of these particular monkeys had previously been reported. Reproductive function of mothers exposed to 5 ppt was not significantly different from the control group. Seven of eight females bred after 7 months of exposure to 5 ppt dioxin were able to conceive; 6 of these females gave birth to viable infants and one gave birth to a stillborn infant. In contrast, among the moneys dosed with 25 ppt, only 5 could conceive and of these only one gave birth to a viable infant; there were 3 spontaneous abortions and one infant died shortly after birth.

These data suggest that maternal exposure to dioxin before and during pregnancy can result in fetal mortality without overt toxic effects on the mother. Humans in industrial countries now eat an average of 133 picograms [trillionths of a gram] of dioxins each day, 90 percent of it in fish, meat and dairy products, according to the World Health Organization.[3] A 1992 study from Germany revealed that endometriosis is correlated with the presence of PCBs in humans,[4] thus confirming findings first reported in 1985 linking PCBs to endometriosis in rhesus monkeys.[5] PCBs and dioxin both interfere with the immune system and with the endocrine system (the body's chemical control system made up of endocrine glands, which produce hormones). Researchers have suspected for some time that endometriosis is somehow caused by malfunction of both the immune and endocrine systems.

Dr. Audrey Cummings with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is now conducting laboratory research to see if dioxin exposure causes endometriosis-like changes in rats.

Dioxin and PCBs are not the only potential culprits. As Dr. Theo Colborn has recently shown, at least 45 chemicals widely distributed in the environment, including 35 pesticides and 10 industrial chemicals, are now thought to damage or impair the endocrine systems of fish, birds and mammals, including humans.[6]

For further information on endometriosis, contact: The Endometriosis Association, 8585 North 76th Place, Milwaukee, WI 53223. Fax: (414) 355-6065. Families affected by the disease can call the Association's toll free line: 1-800-992-3636 for a free packet of information.

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

===============


[1] David E. Larson, editor, MAYO CLINIC FAMILY HEALTH BOOK (N.Y.: William Morrow, 1990), pgs. 1101-1102.

[2] Sherry E. Rier and others, "Endometriosis in Rhesus Monkeys (MACACA MULATTA) Following Chronic Exposure to 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-dioxin," FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED TOXICOLOGY Vol. 21 (1993), pgs. 433-441.

[3] World Health Organization, SUMMARY REPORT; CONSULTATION ON TOLERABLE DAILY INTAKE FROM FOOD OF PCDDS AND PCDFS [REPORT NO. EUR/ICP/PCS 030(S) 0369N] (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1990).

[4] I. Gerhard und B. Runnebaum, "Grenzen der Hormonsubstitution bei Schadstoffbelastung und Fertilitatsstorungen," ZENTRALBLATT FUR GYNAKOLOGIE," Vol. 114 (1992), pgs. 593-602.

[5] J.S. Campbell and others, "Is simian endometriosis an effect of immunotoxicity?" Presented at the Ontario Association of Pathologists 48th Annual (1985) Meeting, London, Ontario, cited in Sherry Rier, note 2, above.

[6] Theo Colborn and others, "Developmental Effects of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in Wildlife and Humans," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 101 No. 5 (October 1993), pgs. 378-384.

Descriptor terms: endometriosis; msc; immune system; endocrine system; allergies; lupus; hashimoto's thyroiditis; rhesus monkeys; studies; laboratory research; university of wisconsin biotron; harlow primate lab; laparoscopy; audrey cummings; epa; theo colborn; pesticides;