Document K10ONgr3OGkQzk5LxxZwYmEx

NEWS & VIEWS A BIMONTHLY PUBLICATION OF THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH VOL 1 NO. 4 JULY 1980 PRICE: $1.00 AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH 1995 Broadway, New York, New York 10023 (212)362-7044 A nonprofit tax exempt educational association promoting scientifically balanced evaluations of chemicals, the environment and human health. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION-A NEW BILLION DOLLAR BABY by Mary Katherine Hayes and Elizabeth M. Whelan A Jury has recently awarded Richard Hogard, 40 years old, $1.2 million in general damages for injuries he suffered in a decade of working with asbestos as an in sulator at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. The jury decided that his problems were caused by asbestosls, a condition which causes scarring of the lungs, from inhaling asbestos fibers while on the Job. The Judg ment was made against Johns Manville Cor poration of Denver and Raybestos Inc. of Trumbull, Conn., two manufacturers of asbestos. The case sets a troublesome precedent for future asbestos trials, and indeed other environmental litigation because the award was not made on a purely scientific basis. In the Hogard case the plantlff, although he did show signs of scarring In his lungs, also smoked heavily for 25 years. In addition, Hogard suffered from chronic bronchitis, a known smoking-related condition, and had previously developed pneumonia, which could easily account for the lung tissue scars. Even If the presence of asbestosis could be clearly documented in this case, scientif ic research has demonstrated that smoking aggravates certain asbestos related condi tions. Futhermore, asbestos workers who smoke run a significantly higher risk of death from asbestosis and even more pro foundly, lung cancer, than their nonsmok ing counterparts. Nevertheless, the jury in this California State Court case voted nine to three in favor of Mr. Hogard. The jury's reaction could be Indicative of a growing attitude we have toward human health In general. Today, our society with its almost desperate search for causes for human disease is using litigation to pin the blame on "environmental" fac tors, particularly If they are associated with The Love Canal area is the subject of a multibilllon dollar lawsuit Industry and technology. The court dockets are increasingly crowded by numerous suits Involving the alleged relationship be tween products of our modem society and human health. While the specific decisions of these legal battles differ, "environment al" factors can be judged guilty without the benefit of scientific fact and the long range implication to the consumer frequently is the same: higher prices, decreased product availability, and declining innovation due to hampered research and development. Photography Unit Division ol Laboratories and Research New Yorit State Department ot Health Empire State Plaza Albany, N.Y. Health related litigation has become a way of life In the U.S. It Is becoming increas ingly difficult to pick up a newspapeiC&nd not read about some party suing a manufac turer for damages such as birth defects, miscarriages or cancer which are claimed to result from exposure to a manufacturer's product or its contaminants. More often than not, chemicals are blamed for the misfortune. (continued on page 14) BON - 02246 BON - 02247 ACSH NEWS & VIEWS A bimonthly publication of the American Council on Science and Health 1995 Broadway New York, New York 10023 212 -- 362-7044 EDITORIAL STAFF Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan Executive Editor Mary Katherine Hayes Guest Editor Terrence Smith Associate Editor Anne M. Christopher Circulation Director1 The comments and editorial opinions expressed In this newsletter do not necessarily represent the views of all ACSH Directorsand Advisors. Yearly subscription (also includes other publications and membership): $35 for individuals: $175 for in stitutions. American Council on Science and Health 1960 IN THIS ISSUE: "Environmental litigation -- a new billion dollar baby" ACSH talks with Congressman James G. Martin "Immunizations: Are we headed toward a flight from technology?" ACSH Reviews: -At Highest Risk The Stresses of My Life The Medusa and the Snail Health Watch Editorial: When consumers talk --FDA listens Profile: Dr. Fredrick Stare ACSH's Visit to the Nutritionist Environmental Update_______ ACSH TALKS WITH CONGRESSMAN JAMES G. MARTIN Elected to the House of Representatives in 1972, Congressman James G. Martin repre sents North Carolina's 9th Congressional District, which includes the city of Char lotte. Before his election, Mr. Martin earned his doctorate in organic chemistry from Princeton University and taught for 12 years at Davidson College near Charlotte. In the House, Congressman Martin serves on the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health. ACSH: YOU HAVE A Ph.D. IN CHEMISTRY, A BACKGROUND THAT CONTRASTS SHARP LY WITH THE CAREERS OF MOST OTHER CONGRESSMEN. DO SCIENTISTS TURNED POLITICIANS APPROACH PROBLEMS DIF FERENTLY THAN OTHER CONGRESS MEN? MARTIN: Well, differently in the sense of having a different perspective on the meaning of evidence and a little better understanding of how the scientific process works. Forexample, when we get into a battle every year over the National Science Foundation grant program, the fellows ih Congress from a science background are part of a little cluster that defends basic research by pointing out that it is the key to every scien tific breakthrough you have any likelihood of achieving. ACSH: WHAT ABOUT THE FUNDING OF APPLIED RESEARCH? MARTIN: If there is a need fQLPPplied research, it can be financed by the private sector who will get a return on the patent rights. If there is a practical application of the research, government shouldn't have to pay for it. The person who benefits should be paying for it. The federal government should fund only the basic research private Industry is not likely to pursue. ACSH: HR3778 IS THE BILL YOU PROPOSED TO REPLACE THE DELANEY CLAUSE. WHY DO YOU FEEL THE CLAUSE SHOULD BE MODIFIED? MARTIN: It's obsolete. It was written 22 years ago, at a time when our analytical chemists were assuring us that our food supply was pure. Then they could detect three parts per million and assured everybody there was absolutely nothing there. Therefore, this ab- <;nliitp 7pro ri:V rnnrpnl wa1? nut into law generally, because not so much was known about the causes of cancer. Today, we know that there are many chemicals -- both natural and artificial -- in the food supply In very small amounts because we can detect parts per billion, and in some cases parts per trillion, of pesticide residue. Further, we've seen that in the interven-* ing years, people who breed sensitive rats and then feed them excessive overdoses of some near lethal dose of a chemical, have found ways to refine their art. They have forced an oncogenic potential in a test animal that isn't there under normal circum stances. I'm concerned that what they're doing Is not really showing a weak car cinogenic effect of the chemicals they're feeding these animals. What they are doing Is so overloading the defense mechanism of the animal that little kidney function re mains. As a result, we're observing not the carcinogenic potential, but the biological dysfunction either of the blood, kidney function or the DNA repair mechanism. ACSH: IN HR3778 YOU ALLUDE TO AN EVALUA TION OF THE BENEFITS DERIVED FROM AN ADDITIVE AND RECOMMEND THAT THEY BE COMPARED TO THE RISKS BE FORE A REGULATORY DECISION IS MADE. THEORETICALLY, THAT SOUNDS GREAT, BUT AREN'T THERE DEFINITE PROBLEMS WITH THE METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUAT ING BENEFITS? MARTIN: In the first place, there are sometimes cir cumstances where the benefits are hard to quantify. And, at other times, even if you can quantify the benefits, the units are not the same as the morbidity statistics of cancer that may or may not be related. But, to me, the difficulties are not nearly as bad as completely ignoring the benefits. At the present time, regardless of what you know about the benefits, they cannot be taken Into account under the Delaney Clause. The benefits have to be ignored altogdifer. In the case of saccharin, for example, there are a lot of different types of health risks you should take Into account -- in creased risk to people who are diabetic, have hypertension, have high blood pres sure, or hyperglycemia. Clearly, there are a number of conditions whose symptoms can be relieved by the rise of artificial sweeteners. So, clearly there are a lot of health benefits, but they are difficult to quantify. ASCH: ARE DIRECT MEDICAL AND NUTRITIONAL BENEFITS THE ONLY FACTORS THAT SHOULD BE WEIGHED AGAINST HEALTH RISKS? chemicals that caused his early death. CIGARETTES -- There have been a dozen cases tried so far in attempts to seek damages against the cigarette manufactur ers for the health problems related to smok ing. Oddly enough, of all cases mentioned, existing scientific evidence provides excep tionally strong support for a causal relation ship between cigarettes and a variety of illnesses. Nevertheless, no case thus far has been successful in demonstrating this in a court of law. There are several prob lems. For one, the various brands of cig arettes a person may have smoked over the years make it difficult to pin the blame on one manufacturer. (This was not the case with DES litigation, where suits were set tled in favor of the daughters whose mothers had used the drug during pregnan cy despite a failure to determine which specific DES manufacturer was involved.) Also the warning that appears on the side of cigarette packages implies that the smoker assumes the risk to health when he buys the tobacco product. This is obviously not a valid point for someone who smoked during the pre-label years and stopped once the health effects were reported. It might seem that scientists and lawyers have Irreconcilable differences as far as product liability litigation is concerned. It is true that both professionals look at the same problem from entirely different points of view. Scientists demand fact. Lawyers, on the other hand, seek to establish reason able probability that an Illness can occur given certain medical evidence. For every lawyer arguing a case on one side, there is another lawyer equally determined to prove an opposing viewpoint. When asked to de fine "reasonable", the concensus of law yers polled by ACSH described it as a prob ability whose occurrence was "more likely than not", in other words, if the odds are 51 percent to 49 percent in favor of probability toward an ill effect, then it is reasonable. This concept is not solely limited to the actual presence of disease. It also extends to those people who are presently healthy, but run a risk of contracting illness some where down the line due to the probability factors surrounding particular exposure. The trend toward litigation, no matter what the outcome, has other long range im plications which ultimately result in in creased cost to ail consumers. Insurance carriers for chemical companies are charg ing enormous rates simply to cover their losses. Manufacturers, for their part, are more careful with their newer products. They go through extended testing In an attempt to minimize possible future liability before a product is introduced to the market. Together with a redirection of finances to cover legal costs, this is reflected in less innovative research and development. The consumer then, has fewer products to choose from and pays higher prices for those products that do make it to market. Indeed, we have reached the age where chemicals are considered guilty until proven innocent. In a recent book on environ- mental cancer, the physician author suggests the following: "Assume you are a middie aged or elderly nonsmoking lady living in Salem County, New Jersey, who has developed bladder cancer. If should seem reasonable to take the position that there is a significant probability that your cancer was caused by discharge of aromatic amine carcinogens into your air and water from nearby plants known to be handling these carcinogens " He then describes how to go about gathering evidence for a lawsuit, although he also says that such a case would be "difficult to prove". The success would rely heavily on the probability factor. However, finding out that chemicals leaked out of the plant somewhere in the past could really be a big help, he adds. Is this really a path of Justice we are following, or are we setting out on a billion dollar chemical witchhunt? Despite concerted efforts to the contrary, it is still impossible to live in a totally clean environment. At some-point in the near future, we as a society must determine what constitutes an acceptable versus an unacceptable risk. For the time is rapidly ap- proaching, when we will no longer be allowed the luxury of looking toward environmental litigation as a panacea for disease. The recent activation of Washington's Mount St. Helen's volcano may have some Interesting consequences. It is Inevitable that the volcanic ash transmitted through the air will Increase claims of a threat of lung cancer in heavily exposed populations. Yet our legal recourse, as it has been established up to this point, would imply an Initia- tlon of a suit against God. Where do we go from there? Application i 'Yes, I/We will join ACSH. Annual Membership Rates: JJ Q Patron: SI.000. j Sponsor: $500. Institutional: $175. I G Individual: $35. | Student: $15. | I wish to contribute S______________________ | in adcfition to membership dues. j The greater your contribution, the more rapidly we i will accomplish our goal. i j Please make all checks payable to American j Council on Science and Health and mail to: j 47 Maple Street Summit, New Jersey 07901 I ju PLEASE PRINT o Name w z Address cc City_______________________________________ o ^ StateZip 2 Telephone _ uj Atfifation_________ _________________________ z w 5 All new members receive the following current reports from ACSH, free ($5.00 each (or non members). G Saccharin is a review of the scientific and c popular literature on the relationship between 5 saccharin and health. " Cancer in the United States: Is There an j Epidemic? A straightforward examination of the I facts as they exist today. I G New Jersey: Garden State or Cancer Alley? I An objective overview of the cancer issue in that j state. ^ j Diet and Hyperactivity: Is There a Relation ship? A review of the scientific and popular j literature on this subject. 1 G Post-menopausal Estrogen Therapy. A 1 review of the risks and benefits of this widely j prescribed drug therapy. j Diet Modification: Can it Reduce the Risk j of Heart DiseaseLAreview of the complex I relationship between dietary habits and coronary I heart disease. j | Full-length technical versions of these reports are also available for purchase. j j 'All contributions are tax deductible as provided by 1 law. 1 jJ BON - 02248 15 American f ACoundi on Science and Health Or. Btesbsth M. Wb*Un Executive Director Bord of Directors Or. MetHn A. Banarda Professor of Eptoem>o*ogy Department of Community Medic** and Enwonmaniat Haatm Hahnemann Medcai Cottage & Hospt* ftNiaMptua. Pennsytvarxa D*. Harman E. Borteug Htemakonai Man and WN Improvement CarMr Lonckcs. Meuco Ot EM. Factor Owactor Food Research ktsuiute University ot Waconan Madison, Woconon DcThomaa K. Jukea Professor m Residence Medcai Phyocs Space Sciences Laboratory University oi CaMorrwa Berkeley. Caktorma Or. Gilbert Lavail* Professor and Cn*rman Oeparwncnt ot Food Soane* and Human Nutrition Mcrxgan State Unrversity East Lansmg, Mchigan Mr. Joeaph P. Murphy Exacukva Vc* President Continental Corporation New YQrk. New York Or. Retort E. Otean Ahca A. Oorty Professor and Chapman Department ot Biochemistry School ot Maocata St Loud umvarsay Medcai Camar St Lous. Missouri Dr. Fredrick J. Star* Profassor ot Nutrition Harvard School ol Pubhc Heakh Boston. Massachusetts Dr. EMxabath M. Whateft Rasearcn Assoctat* Harvard Schoot ot Pubke Hasivt Boston. Massachusetts card of Sclontlfle Advisors Roatyn B. AffWv&tetar, PhD. Unrvarsity ol CaMom* at LOS Angelas Nuirmoniat Howard Apptodort, PhD. Unrvarsity ol Fionda Nutrmomst. Food Sciantdi Stephen Barrett, MD. Larugn Valley Committee Aga*m Health Fraud, me. Psychamst. Laadar m Combating Health Ouackcry MJL Bonard*. PM). Hannemann Made* College and Hospital Eptoemotogrtt. Enwonmantai Spaciahst Darn C. Fletcher, Ph.OH RD. Washington State University Nutritionist, Human Toicotogyl Cancer Researcher EJA Footer. PM). University ot Wiseonsm Food Mctoectogst W. Ortonon, Phi). University ol Florida Plant Physctogy* WWtem R. Hsrandar. PM). Unrvarsity of Caktorma atBarkatey Rasaarcn Bcchamy* Harman Borteug, PM), international Maua and vvhaal Improvement Centar Agnculiurat Tachnotogisl No&af Lauras* John M. Buchanan, PhD. Maaaachusatis ktSMut* of Technology Bechamtst John P. CaNeri, Mi). Psychutnst. Mad* Spaoakst E. Campaign#. PM). Indian* University Organic Chaimt PJi. Ctydaadato. PhD. Unrvarsity ol Massachusetts Food Technology*. Nutnkonct- PNNp Co*. MD, Or. PJL Harvard School ol Pubic Heahn Epdarnoiogyt TJ. Cunha. PM). Caktorma Sta* Polytechnic Unrvarsity Anenai Nukooasl Livestock SpecteH* Rebart M. Part*, PhD. Umvarsay ot Massachusetts Plant Pftysctog** J. Cordon Edwarda, PhD. San Jo** Sty* Unwarsay Emomotogat Marti Etoanbnd. *0. Naw York Uncvarsty Madcat Canter Spectate* m Emironmantai Haocci WWtem E. Hazatttna, PM). Butt* County. Cakfornia Mosquio Abatement Ostrie! Manager. Environmentalist. Entomology* Victor Herbert, MD, AD. Bronx Veterans Adrmnyirstton Medcai Center State University ot New Ybrk interny*. Hamaiotogdt. Ngtrfeony* Attorney WWtem T. Jot*. PM). Lome Linda Umversity Consumer Heaun Spaoakst Thomas H. Jukea. PM). University of Caktorma at Barkttey Medical Physcy*. Nuttitcny* John a Katter. PML Ttaxcotogy*. Conaukam ftphen Kratenan, PhD. Emory Unrversity Nutobony* Merrtrad Kroger, PhD. Pennsytvania Stata unrvarsity Food Scientist A Cteybum LaFarce. PM). Unrvarsity ot CaMornia at Los Angelas Economet Qfteert LavoMto. PhD. Itecnigan State Umvarsay * Food Soanktt. Human Nutritional Rottert MacVlear, PhD. Oregon Stata University Agriculture Btochemrst Stanley Walten. PhD. Unrversity of Nebraska Food Technologist. Food Scientist Roger P. MalekaL PhD. Ptxdue Unrversity Pharmacy and Pnarmaeai St ncas Specialist Kristen McNutt. PhD; National Nutrition Consorixim. Inc. Nutntiontsi JX Otdftettf, PhD. Oregon Stata Unrvarsity Anenal Soanca Scaoaksl Hobart E. Oteon, MDn PhD. St. Lous Unrvarsity Mafrcai Cantar O-ucai Nutnhon Rtehartf E. Partch. PhD. Cterkson Coitege Syntnabc and Physical Organic Chemst Stmva Repoport. ODD. Amarcan Oantai Assooaaon Panodoniai OanhsL Consumer Advisor EUxabtth M. Whelan. SeD,, M.PJL Harvard School of Pupae Heatf* PubkcHeann Spaciatet Philip White, ScD. American Medical Association Nutrition Educator (spacihcaffy. Consumer Concerns. Food Satety and Heann) Rteherd WHaan, PhD. Harvard University Energy and Environmental Specialist Jama* Harvey Young. PhD. Emory University Social Historian of Mtdm (specifically. Food and Orugs) ' John A. Zapp, Jr, PhD. Consultant Toxicology), tndusviai Hygwrus) Oavtd B. RoN. PhD. Unrvcmty ot Utah Merhonal Charmst Sidney ShtedoM. MD,, LLB. Th* Medical College ot Wisconan Scecahst r Preventive Mediona end Oecupakonai Epteermoiogy Sarah H. Short. PhD^ EdD. Syracuse Urwetarty Upstate Medtoat Canter State University ot New Ytrk Nuthttonat. Educahonat and Medte Speoabst Washington Policy Advisor S. John Bykigton, JD. Qushne*. Gage. Reuen & Bymgton. PC Attorney Former Chavman Consumer Product Safety Commission Henry P. Smyth. PhD. Ukversay of Pmsougn industrial Toxicoiogtet Fredrick J. Start, MD. Harvard School ot Pubfcc Haawt Ftiysoan. Nukikontst John A. IbdhuAtar, PhD. Th* Canokc University or America Motecutar Botogrst. Bechamrst American Council on Science and Health 1995 Broadway (near 68th Street) New York. New York 10023 An Educational Association Promoting Scientifically Balanced Evaluations ol Chemicals, the Environment and Human Health. NON PROFIT ORG. U.S. POSTAGE PAID NEW YORK. N.Y. PERMIT NO. 3379 JULIUS K. NEMETH BONOEX INTERNATIONAL INC. P. 0. BOX 88 BRUNSWICK OH 44212 BON - 02249