#310: The N.Y. Times Detoxifies Dioxin (Again)

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

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #310
---November 5, 1992---
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========================

During August and September U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released drafts of 8 chapters of its long-awaited report on the dangers of dioxin. The agency then promptly convened a 4-day meeting of independent scientists September 22-25 to review and discuss the drafts.

The day after the meeting ended, the NEW YORK TIMES reported (Sept. 26, 1992, pg. 9) that "An independent panel of scientists concluded today that dioxin was not a large-scale cancer threat except to people exposed to unusually high levels of the toxic compound in chemical factories and from accidents."

The TIMES said, "The panel based its conclusions about the effects of dioxin on human health largely on four studies...."

The TIMES story said, "...the risk to average Americans exposed to dioxin, principally by eating beef, dairy products, chicken and fish, is lower than previously believed."

The TIMES reported that, "The risks, said several panelists, are largely confined to chemical workers and people exposed to high levels of dioxin from industrial accidents. They said the levels of dioxin ordinarily found in the environment had not been shown to be dangerous to people."

The TIMES went on, "Scientists have known for a long time that laboratory animals are apparently much more sensitive to the dioxin molecule than people for reasons that are not well understood, and newer studies have shown that trout, salmon, and some species of birds also are very sensitive."

The TIMES concluded, "In separate interviews, several panelists said today that they did not consider the levels of dioxin in most Americans, about 5 parts per trillion in fat, to be an important health hazard."

In sum, the NEW YORK TIMES led its readers to believe that a panel of independent scientists reviewed four studies and concluded, apparently by consensus, that dioxin is only a danger to the health of heavily-exposed chemical workers and victims of rare accidents, and even for them the only danger is cancer; that existing levels of dioxin in the environment are not dangerous to people; that the risks of dioxin are lower than previously believed; that laboratory animals and some wildlife may be at risk but this has little to do with humans because humans--for reasons unknown--seem to be uniquely unaffected by low doses of dioxin.

The TIMES put this comforting story on the wire and many U.S. newspapers picked it up. The result was a nation-wide press blitz saying dioxin is basically harmless to humans. For example, the DETROIT NEWS reprinted the TIMES story, then capped it off Sept. 29 with an editorial,"The End of Dioxin Hysteria?" which concluded, "But the fact that dioxin has turned out to be something of a non-issue where humans are concerned suggests the religious zeal with which some environmentalists are trying to close down the chemical industry deserves to be greeted with extreme skepticism."

Is this the last word on dioxin? It's not a threat to human health; levels found in the environment today are of little concern; the risks used to seem worse than they seem today; and the risks are limited to cancer among chemical factory employees. Is that what EPA spent 18 months and untold millions of dollars to find out?

It seems not. Other reporters and participants in the four-day meeting--including top EPA officials who called the meeting--came away with views and information almost 180 degrees out of sync with what the NEW YORK TIMES reported. On October 9, Erich W. Bretthauer, EPA's Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, sent a memo to EPA chief William Reilly giving Reilly his own views on what EPA has learned so far about dioxin. In his memo, Bretthauer made seven points, each of which was either contradicted, or missed entirely, by the TIMES:

1. To understand the risks of dioxin, we should consider a broad range of health effects, not just cancer, Bretthauer told Reilly. 

2. Dioxin has been observed to cause certain non-cancer effects in animals by disrupting the body's endocrine system (glands and tissues that control bodily functions via chemical messengers called hormones). These endocrine effects include reproduction, behavior of offspring, and changes in the immune system. "Some data suggest that these effects may be occurring in people at body burden levels that can result from exposures at, or near, current background," Bretthauer told Reilly. In other words, the amount of dioxin already present in the environment, and in the bodies of Americans, is at, or close to, levels that, in animals, cause hormone shifts, reproductive disorders, changes in behavior, and immune system damage. 

3. Recent studies indicate that dioxin causes cancer in humans; these studies need to be evaluated further and then EPA needs to form a new official position about the cancer hazard to humans. 

4. Additional compounds besides dioxin (for example, some types of PCBs) have dioxin-like effects and should be included in EPA's reassessment of the hazards of dioxin. 

5. There is insufficient data to develop a model that will allow us to predict the cancer hazards to humans from low-level exposure to dioxin. During the next 3 to 5 months, government studies may provide the needed data. 

6. The available data seem to indicate that dioxin will cause cancer in humans in proportion to the exposure--high doses will cause many cancers, lower doses will cause fewer cancers, and the only dose that is risk-free is zero. In other words, the so-called "linear hypothesis" of cancer causation appears to hold true in the case of dioxin, though this is not certain. 

7. Risks from existing background levels of dioxin in the general population need to be "carefully considered."

The WALL STREET JOURNAL (Oct. 16, 1992, pg. B9) summarized Bretthauer's memo this way: "Data reviewed by an independent scientific panel suggest that the danger from dioxin may be broader and more serious than previously thought, according to an internal Environmental Protection Agency memo."

The business journal, ENVIRONMENT REPORTER [ER] (Oct. 2, 1992, pg. 1504), offered its own coverage of the Sept. 22-25 meeting. The basis of ER's story was an interview with William H. Farland, director of the EPA Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, the man in charge of the EPA's reassessment of dioxin. Farland summarized the four-day meeting by saying dioxin is "a major health threat," and that the draft report on dioxin is "unlikely to ease public concern over dioxin."

Farland said that "scientists at the recent meeting reported a host of non-carcinogenic effects at very low dose levels--near background levels--as well as the ability to cause cancer in humans at high doses," 

ENVIRONMENT REPORTER said.

In sum, EPA's scientific reassessment of dioxin--which is based on several thousand studies of dioxin--isn't over yet, but so far the scientific evidence is showing dioxin to be a worse problem than formerly believed. The reassessment was initiated by EPA chief Reilly 18 months ago in response to complaints by the paper and chlorine industries, who charged that EPA's regulation of dioxin was too strict because low doses of dioxin are harmless. These industries argued that there is a "threshold," an amount of dioxin below which no effects will occur. EPA's scientific reassessment of dioxin has, so far, substantiated EPA's original view of dioxin, that it is a potent toxin for which there is no observable threshold. Furthermore, the reassessment has added a host of new concerns, which were discussed at length during the four-day meeting--concerns about disruption of the reproductive system, harm to the immune system, and behavioral changes in offspring of dioxin-exposed parents.

The really big news from the meeting was the revelation that these endocrine-system effects in animals are observable at body burdens similar to the body burdens in Americans today. If this view is upheld in the next few weeks as scientists continue to review the available data, it will mean that any addition of dioxin to the environment will be adding to an already-unacceptable situation. This would provide a scientific foundation for a demand that "zero discharge" be adopted as the basis for control of dioxin. William Farland nearly said as much in his interview with ER: "We have to be very cautious about any additions of dioxin to the environment. We must be very concerned about these high background levels of dioxin and what they may mean for human health."

Industries that emit dioxin into the environment--paper producers, waste incinerators, metal smelters, and herbicide producers and users--are feeling tremendous pressure to curtail emissions, and the pressure seems likely to increase.

Newspapers, of course, are dependent upon paper for their existence and they have a material interest in 

keeping paper prices low. According to the WALL STREET JOURNAL, the paper industry has already spent over a billion dollars trying to control dioxin.

The NEW YORK TIMES, which has a history of odd reporting on dioxin (see RHWN #248, #249, #275), received at least three letters to the editor complaining about its misleading coverage of the September meeting--two of them from scientists who participated in the meeting and who objected strongly to the TIMES's reporting. The TIMES also received a letter from a consultant to the incineration industry who said it was "comforting" to learn that the dioxin found now in the bodies of Americans is "less toxic than previously assumed." The TIMES did not print either of the letters from the scientists but did print the letter from the incineration consultant, who argued that automobiles are the leading source of dioxin. This point of view, which is no doubt comforting to the incineration industry, and to the paper and newspaper industries, is almost certainly wrong. 

We will provide more details next week.#311

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

Descriptor terms: epa; dioxin; incineration; health; pulp and paper industry; dioxin reassessment; birth defects; ny times; carcinogens; cancer; wall street journal; automobiles;

#284: A Breakthrough in Control of Toxics, PCBs (dioxin)

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

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #284
---May 6, 1992---
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========================

An important breakthrough in control of toxics occurred during April. The International Joint Commission (IJC), a government body with responsibility for environmental quality of the Great Lakes, made far-reaching official recommendations which, for the first time, embody a truly modern approach to the identification and control of toxic chemicals. It appears to be a real first step toward a sustainable world. In a nutshell, the IJC now recommends[1] that the U.S. and Canada:

a) Ban incineration in certain areas near the Great Lakes; 

b) Phase out the use of chlorine in manufacturing; 

c) Adopt a "weight of the evidence" approach, not waiting for scientific certainty to be established but taking action to protect against toxics as soon as the "weight of the evidence" indicates the need for action. 

d) Define many chemicals as "persistent toxic substances" and then ELIMINATE them because recent history tells us persistent toxics cannot be safely managed.

Although the first two recommendations--ban incineration and phase out chlorine--are the most startling, it is really the last two recommendations that constitute a radical departure from the past.

In recommending a "weight of the evidence" approach and in recommending the elimination of all persistent toxic substances, the IJC has turned its back on risk assessment and numerical standards. Today risk assessment and numerical standards form the backbone of the U.S. regulatory system for controlling toxic substances. The IJC says the traditional regulatory system has failed and must be abandoned.

In their joint 1978 Water Quality Agreement, the U.S. and Canada defined a "toxic substance" as "a substance which can cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations, physiological or reproductive malfunctions or physical deformities in any organism or its offspring, or which can become poisonous after concentration in the food chain or in combination with other substances."

The IJC now recommends defining a class of chemicals called "persistent toxic substances," which should then be ELIMINATED because they cannot be managed safely.

The IJC recommends that a persistent toxic substance be defined as any toxic chemical that bioaccumulates, or any toxic chemical that has a half-life greater than eight weeks in any medium (water, air, sediment, soil, or living things). Substances with either of these characteristics should be ELIMINATED, the IJC says.

The "half life" of a substance is the time it takes for half of it to disappear. For example, DDT has a "half-life" of about 20 years in soil; if a pound of DDT is released into soil today, half of it will still exist 20 years from now. The IJC recommends that any toxic substance with a half-life greater than 8 weeks be considered too dangerous to be released and should be ELIMINATED.

A substance bioaccumulates if its concentration increases as it moves through the food chain. For example, DDT may be found at one ppm (part per million) in fish and at 10 ppm in fish-eating birds. Thus DDT bioaccumulates. The IJC says any toxic substance that bioaccumulates should be ELIMINATED.

What is the IJC?

The IJC was created in 1909 by the governments of Canada and the U.S. to oversee the Boundary Waters Treaty, which guides Great Lakes-related behavior of the two nations. Starting in 1912, and again in 1945 and 1964 the IJC was asked by the two governments to report on water quality of the lakes. The studies revealed progressive deterioration. In 1972 and again in 1978 the two nations signed Water Quality Agreements aimed specifically at improving water quality in the lakes. The goal of the 1978 Agreement was broad: "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem." It is up to the IJC to manage and monitor efforts to achieve the goals of the 1978 Agreement. In 1981, the IJC began issuing a report every two years, describing the condition of the lakes in relation to the goals of the 1978 Agreement. The 6th biennial report from the IJC, released in April, 1992, contains these far-reaching recommendations.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and its Canadian counterpart, Environment Canada, must respond to the IJC recommendations within six months. In the past, many IJC recommendations have been adopted by the governments of the U.S. and Canada because IJC recommendations are typically buttressed by many studies and much data. That is the case with the present recommendations.

Regarding the Great Lakes environment, the IJC report says, "The principal problem is the presence and impact of persistent toxic substances on all sectors of the ecosystem." The report says the old way of protecting ourselves against these toxic materials has failed: "...the Commission concludes that attempts to regulate persistent toxic substances have not resulted in an efficient or successful set of programs." The IJC report says, "Surely it is time to ask whether we really want to MANAGE persistent toxic substances after they have been produced, or whether we want to ELIMINATE and PREVENT their existence in the ecosystem in the first place."

The report goes on, "It is clear to us that persistent toxic substances have caused widespread injury to the environment and to human health. As a society we can no longer afford to tolerate their presence in our environment and in our bodies.... Hence, if a chemical or group of chemicals is persistent, toxic and bioaccumulative, we should immediately begin a process to eliminate it. Since it seems impossible to eliminate discharges of these chemicals through other means, a policy of banning or sunsetting their manufacture, distribution, storage, use and disposal appears to be the only alternative." The IJC defines "sunsetting" as "a comprehensive process to restrict, phase out, and eventually ban the manufacture, generation, use and disposal of a persistent toxic substance."

The IJC says, "Such a strategy should recognize that all persistent toxic substances are dangerous to the environment, deleterious to the human condition, and can no longer be tolerated in the ecosystem, whether or not unassailable scientific proof of acute or chronic damage is universally accepted.... Therefore the focus must be on preventing the generation of persistent toxic substances in the first place, rather than trying to control their use, release, and disposal after they are produced."

This is a very important point. The IJC is urging adoption of a "weight of the evidence" approach to controlling toxics, not waiting until absolute scientific proof is available because by then it may be too late. On this point the IJC says:

The Commission Recognizes That Scientific Data Are Open To Interpretation And That, Notwithstanding The Confirmed Cause-And-Effect Link In Some Cases, Unequivocal Conclusions May Be Difficult To Reach In Others, Especially If Individual Studies Are Considered In Isolation. With Low Contaminant Concentrations, Subtle Effects And Potentially Confounding Factors, Unequivocal Evidence Of Injury To Humans By Persistent Toxic Substances May Be Difficult Or Impossible To Obtain.

Critics Have Attempted To Find Flaws With Individual Studies In Order To Discredit Findings And Conclusions About Persistent Toxic Substances. While Limitations To Study Design May Exist, This Does Not Necessarily Invalidate The Findings And Conclusions When Considered In A Weight-Of-The-Evidence Context. At Some Point The Emerging Mass Of Data And Information Must Be Accepted As Sufficient To Prompt... Action Against Environmental Contaminants.

There is abundant evidence that wildlife in the Great Lakes are being harmed by persistent chemicals, the IJC says. But "Most troubling of all is the experts' conclusion that humans are being affected as well. Indeed, they estimate that levels of some of these chemicals measured in the human population are in the same range, and in some cases even greater, than those found in adversely affected wildlife populations."

The IJC report points to evidence that fish, birds, and mammals around the Great Lakes are suffering from thyroid dysfunction, decreased fertility, decreased hatching success, gross birth defects, metabolic abnormalities, behavioral abnormalities, demasculinization/feminization, defeminization/masculinization, and compromised immune systems. (See RHWN #146, #263, #264.)

The report attributes these diseases and abnormal conditions to persistent toxic substances like lead, mercury, DDT, PCBs, PAHs [polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons] and a broad spectrum of persistent chlorinated hydrocarbons such as hexachlorobenzene, pentachlorophenol, furans, and dioxins.

The 1978 Water Quality Agreement adopted "zero discharge" language as a philosophy, but now the IJC seems bent on turning it into a workable program. The Commission says "Zero discharge does not mean less than detectable. It also does not mean the use of controls based on best available technology, best management practices, or similar means of treatment that continue to allow the release of residual chemicals." Zero means zero, and ZERO DISCHARGE means ELIMINATION.

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

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

[1] The recommendation to ban incineration was included in the International Joint Commission's report, AIR QUALITY IN THE DETROIT-WINDSOR/PORT HURON-SARNIA REGION (Ottawa, Canada, and Washington, DC: International Joint Commission, February, [1992).] All other recommendations that we discuss appear in the IJC's SIXTH BIENNIAL REPORT ON GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY (Ottawa, Canada, and Washington, DC: International Joint Commission, April, 1992). Both reports are available free from the IJC office at 1250 23rd St., NW, Suite 100, Washington, DC 20440. Telephone: (202) 736-9000. In Canada, phone (519) 256-7821.

Descriptor terms: ijc; great lakes; canada; persistant toxic substances; regulations; sunsetting; water quality agreement; bans; zero discharge; us; health; epa; environment canada;