Industry & EPA Cover Up Dioxin Contamination
of Meat & Animal Products

Dioxin Report By EPA On Hold
Industries Oppose Finding of Cancer Link, Urge Delay

By Eric Pianin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 12, 2001; Page A01

The chemical, beef and poultry industries are waging an intense campaign to
delay further an Environmental Protection Agency study showing that
consumption of animal fat and dairy products containing traces of dioxin can
cause cancer in humans.

EPA scientists and officials say they are confident of the report's
findings, which they began circulating last June, and are urging EPA
Administrator Christine Todd Whitman to issue it in final form this summer.
But the study, more than a decade in the works, has drawn such intense
opposition from industry groups and congressional Republicans that it could
be held up for several more years.

By any measure, the economic stakes in the dioxin controversy are high: The
EPA's issuance of a final report could result in federal and state
regulations costly to chemical manufacturers. It also could provide more
adverse publicity for the beef industry at a time of heightened consumer
concern about the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Europe.

Industry groups including the American Chemistry Council, the Chlorine
Chemistry Council, the Chemical Manufacturers Association, the American Meat
Institute and the National Cattlemen's and Beef Association contend the
EPA's study is seriously flawed and exaggerates the health risk dioxin
poses.

"We are alarmed at any study that reaches conclusions not based on science,"
said Gary Weber, executive director of regulatory affairs for the
cattlemen's association.

Environmentalists who have closely followed the issue for years charge that
industry groups and their political allies in government are working to keep
the study bottled up indefinitely for political reasons, not scientific
ones.

"What we're saying is the chemical industry has had a big influence over the
way the EPA makes its decisions," said Stephen Lester of the Center for
Health, Environment and Justice, which monitors hazardous waste. "They've
affected the way the science policy and business of the agency is done."

The Bush administration has challenged several Clinton-era environmental and
public health rules and initiatives -- including a tough new standard for
arsenic in drinking water -- on the grounds they weren't scientifically
sound and would cause economic hardship to industry and local governments.

The politically active chemical, livestock and meatpacking industries
contributed $1,171,000 to Bush's campaign last year, according to the Center
for Responsive Politics. Industry officials are lobbying the administration
to postpone indefinitely release of the study until other agencies, such as
the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration, can
conduct lengthy studies.

EPA officials and spokesmen for the chemical and meat industries dispute
environmentalists' charges of a "conspiracy" to block the study's release.
They describe the controversy as a dispute over the interpretation of
mountains of studies on the health effects of dioxin. Moreover, some
scientists were skeptical of the EPA's latest report and predicted it would
not withstand scrutiny.

Whitman declined last week to speculate on the fate of the agency draft
report, saying only, "We're still looking at that."

Some industry officials concede their primary goal is simply to keep the
study of dioxin -- begun during the Reagan administration -- going for as
long as possible. David Fischer, managing counsel for the Chlorine Chemistry
Council, said his group is pressing the administration to take "an
interagency approach" that would allow the FDA, the Agriculture Department
and other agencies with jurisdiction over food safety to weigh in.

Fischer said any attempt by Whitman and the EPA to conclude unilaterally
that dioxin causes cancer "is a plan doomed for failure."

Dioxin is the airborne byproduct of burning plastics and medical waste
containing chlorine. These pollutant compounds infiltrate the food chain
through grass and feed, then settle into the fat of livestock and poultry.

The most toxic form of the chemical is known by the acronym TCDD and was
more commonly recognized as the contaminant found in Agent Orange, a
defoliant used during the Vietnam War. The Air Force has found a
"significant and potentially meaningful" relationship between diabetes and
bloodstream levels of chemical dioxin in its ongoing study of people who
worked with Agent Orange.

Although there is some research of people who were accidentally exposed to
the chemical, most data about the potential health effects of dioxin have
come from laboratory experiments on animals.

The prevalence of this toxic chemical in the environment has declined by
nearly 80 percent since the 1970s because of changing practices in the
chemical industry and in waste disposal operations, but the latest EPA study
concludes that people who consume even small amounts of dioxin in fatty
foods and dairy products face a cancer risk of 1 in 100. They may also
develop other problems, such as attention disorder, learning disabilities,
susceptibility to infections and liver disorders.

In 1985, the EPA released its first dioxin health assessment, but the
agency's findings that the chemical posed one of the most serious threats of
cancer in humans of any chemical studied drew strong protests from the
chemical industry, which prompted the agency to do a reassessment.

That study, completed in 1994, spurred yet another reassessment. That one
culminated in the EPA's issuance last June of its latest findings, showing
that the risk of getting cancer from dioxin exposure was 10 times greater
than previously thought, ranging from 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 100.

But now there are more hurdles. A subcommittee of an EPA scientific advisory
panel composed of outside experts publicly convened in November for two days
to review the agency's findings and to make recommendations.

About a third of the 21 panel members were scientists and scholars who have
worked as paid consultants to the chemical industry. They included John D.
Graham -- long a critic of the notion that dioxin and cancer are linked and
founder of the industry-backed Harvard Center for Risk Analysis -- who was
recently appointed to a key regulatory review post in the Office of
Management and Budget, and Dennis Paustenbach, vice president of Exponent
Inc., an engineering and scientific consulting firm. Paustenbach's firm has
advised Chemical Land Holdings Inc. and Occidental Chemical Corp. on ways of
challenging the EPA's dioxin findings.

An EPA official involved in the preparation of the latest dioxin
reassessment said when the advisory panel had completed its meetings, he and
other agency officials were under the strong impression that "they had
accepted our assumption the data was sufficient to characterize the best
studied of the dioxins as a human carcinogen."

Yet on March 13 the panel, headed by Morton Lippmann of the New York
University School of Medicine, issued an executive summary of its
deliberations that cast serious doubt on many of the EPA's findings --
including the risk assessment of contracting cancer -- and recommended
wholesale revisions and rethinking of the study. The industry experts
contend that the EPA has overstated the risks posed by normal levels of
dioxin in food and questioned the research models used.

Moreover, Lippmann and panel member Genevieve Matanoski had raised strong
concerns that EPA scientists had excluded contrary data from two important
dioxin studies in reaching their conclusions, according to Gary Kayajanian,
an independent consultant who closely monitored the November meetings.

The Center for Health, Environment and Justice protested that some panel
members who assisted in preparing the March 13 report had misrepresented the
views of the majority of the advisory panel members. But some panel members
and their industry supporters say environmental protesters who attended the
November sessions may have intimidated some experts and prompted them to
withhold their views until they wrote their report.

"I think a lot of us -- me included -- believe the data in the current
analysis is fairly weak that risks of cancer [from normal doses of dioxin]
are equal to 1 in 1,000," Paustenbach said. "When there's a number of vocal
[protesters] who clearly have strong views, there may be a tendency [by
panel members] to be cautious and to not antagonize the crowd, if you will."

Home | News | Organics | GE Food | Health | Environment | Food Safety | Fair Trade | Peace | Farm Issues | Politics
Español | Campaigns | Buying Guide | Press | Search | Donate | About Us | Contact Us

Organic Consumers Association - 6771 South Silver Hill Drive, Finland MN 55603
E-mail: Staff · Activist or Media Inquiries: 218-226-4164 · Fax: 218-353-7652
Please support our work. Send a tax-deductible donation to the OCA

Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.