Document Z8OjVZ5rQNjrObY8akQQqrVe8

he New Mexico Review December, 1971 12811 defoliants. By removing the leaf cover in forests, may be more, particularly if it develops that 4) After all the arguments are made, all the the military can make observation of enemy human beings have been seriously harmed. A evidence in, all the alarms sounded, it it still is troops easier. By killing crops, food can be careful assessment of the entire situation must be decided that the salt cedar must go, then find denied them. Since 1961, it is estimated that one made, and compensation fixed accordingly. some other method than that which was used in seventh of the land area in South Vietnam has 2) Study the effect of the Bureau of San Acacio. Much, much more must be known been sprayed with one herbicide or another, Reclamation spraying on livestock, fish, and about our agricultural chemicals, and this is though detailed figures are regarded by the wildlife^ What has been the effect on birds, on especially true of the chlorinated hydrocarbons military as classified information. rabbits, on fish? such as Silvex. There is no question about the effectiveness 3) Reconsider the whole program of killing of defoliation in Vietnam. It works. An assessment by the American Association for the Advancement of Science early this year asserted that one-fifth to one-half of South Vietnam's mangrove forests have been "utterly destroyed," trees in the Rio Grande valley. Perhaps salt cedar is a great consumer of water. But does its eradication actually increase water for irrigation? And if it does, which is more in the public interest-salt cedar or more water? John Browne is pastor o f the Presbyterian Church in Socorro, New Mexico. The Trotters, whose cattle were decimated by the Silvex spraying program, are members o f his parish. and that perhaps half the trees in the mature hardwood forests north and west of Saigon are dead. The AAAS report further noted that though Silvex Causes Birth Defects adverse health effects in humans due to the use of herbicides in Vietnam cannot at this time be A scientist with the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says laboratory tests conclusively proved, there is real reason for alarm reveal that the herbicide Silvex causes birth defects in both chickens and hamsters. In a in the increase of stillbirths and deformities in telephone interview November 17 with the Review, Dr. Jacqueline Verrett said that her newborn children which were coincident with laboratory tests definitely show Silvex to be teratogenic (an agent causing birth defects). It was large-scale spraying. In Tay Ninh, a very heavily Dr. Verrett who revealed two years ago that cyclamates can cause cancer. defoliated province, stillbirths in 1968 and 1969 Silvex is a close chemical relative of another herbicide called 2,4,5-T (short for were at a rate of 64 per thousand. Saigon 2.4 .5 - trichlorophenoxyacetic acid). Silvex is sometimes, in fact, called 2,4,5-TP (short for C hildren's Hospital had experienced a 2.4.5- trichlorophenoxy propionic acid). Both compounds, Silvex and 2,4,5-T , are disproportionate rise in birth defects in 1967 and manufactured starting with the same basic substance, 2,4,5--trichlorophenol. 1968. In a study commissioned by the National Silvex was the chemical which the Bureau of Reclamation admits to having sprayed along Cancer Institute, laboratory mice showed an the Rio Grande River near Socorro, N.M. (see story). Both cattle and humans were increased incidence of abnormal fetuses at ail but inadvertently sprayed during that incident. Several of the cows were pregnant at the time and the lowest dosages of 2,4,5--T, and a level of have subsequently given birth to deformed and dead calves. dosage was found where 100% of fetuses would The teratogenic effects of Silvex and 2,4,5--T were the subject of testimony before a be deformed. subcommittee of the U.S. Senate in June, 1970. At that time two of Ralph Nader's consultants, Bowing to the accumulating evidence, the Mr. Harrison Wellford and Dr. Albert Fritsch, told Senator Philip Hart's Subcommittee on government made a complete change of policy in Energy, Natural Resources and the Environment that 2,4,5-T should be banned from use April of 1970. The Secretaries of Interior, because "there is considerable evidence that 2,4,5-T is dangerous to human beings and that it Agriculture, and Health, Education, and Welfare presents an immediate hazard to the public." They also said that Silvex should be banned announced that new information had indicated because it is "chemically so similar" to 2,4,5-T. Until Dr. Verrett's statement of Nov. 17 to th at 2 ,4 ,5 - T could produce abnormal the New Mexico Review, however, there have been no public confirmations that Silvex causes development in unborn animals. Despite the birth defects in laboratory tests. Army's protest, the Deputy Secretary of Defense A controversy has been raging in Washington for over two years regarding the ability of ordered the immediate suspension of the use of 2.4.5- T to cause birth defects. On October 29, 1969, Dr. Lee Dubridge, President Nixon's 2.4.5- T "pending a more thorough evaluation of science advisor, announced that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) would cancel the the situation." registration of 2,4,5-T. Subsequently, however, President Nixon refused to support Dubridge in Within the United States, the registration of his statement. The proposed ban fell apart. Dow Chemical Co., the major manufacturer of liquid forms of this herbicide was suspended by 2.4.5- T, brought forth evidence that the teratogenic (literally, "monster-producing") agent was the Agriculture Department, making interstate not 2,4,5-T itself but an impurity which is created in 2,4,5-T during the manufacturing sales illegal. Nonliquid forms were to remain on process. This impurity is called 2,3,7,8-tetra-chloro-dibenzo-/>-dioxin - and it is usually called sale until hearings and possible appeals are just dioxin or TCDD. Since there are numerous dioxins the most accurate short term for llvis completed. The ban did not affect the use of particular agent is TCDD. 2.4.5- T for control of weeds and brush on According to Dow Chemical, TCDD is one of the most highly teratogenic agents ever range, forest, pasture, and other non-agricultural discovered. The FDA has verified these findings; in FDA labs TCDD has been shown to produce land. It did affect its use around the home and birth defects in chickens and hamsters at levels 100,000 to 1,000,000 lower than the amount of on lakes, ponds, and ditch banks. In,view of that thalidomide causing birth defects in the same animal test systems. order, it is difficult to understand the use of Testifying before Senator Hart's subcommittee. Dr. Albert Fritsch described the such a close relative of 2,4,5--T along the Rio manufacture of both 2,4,5-T and Silvex, pointing out that the potent teratogen, TCDD, is Grande this summer. created at a stage in the process when 2,4,5-T and Silvex are identical. Thus both 2,4,5-T and Silvex can be expected to appear on the dealer's shelf contaminated by TCDD. Dr. Verrett of Recapitulation FDA confirmed this in her interview with the Review on Nov. 17. "When we look for TCDD in In summary, tire facts seem to be as follows: each of these agents, we always find it," said Dr. Verrett. that an agency of the federal government did Dr. Verrett also pointed out, however, that 2,4,5-T and Silvex have been shown to produce cause the land on which Trotter's and Mayo's defects even after chemical purification to remove the potent TCDD. She said that her cattle were pastured to be sprayed; that in view laboratory has gone to considerable trouble to purify both 2,4,5-T and Silvex and to test the of the known and suspected dangers of the purified substances. `They test positive without the TCDD impurity," she asserts. "Even chlorinated hydrocarbon family, this spraying purified Silvex causes deformed beaks and legs in chick embryos," says Dr. Vprrett, "and it also was irresponsible; that Trotter and Mayo have causes an increase in fetal mortalities." suffered a substantial loss, the extent of which is On April 15, 1970, the Surgeon General of the United States announced that a series of at this writing not fully known; that their loss is tests by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) had confirmed earlier the direct result of the use of this particular studies conducted by Bionetics Laboratory under contract with the National Cancer Institute. chemical under the conditions in which it was The new studies confirmed that 2,4,5-T causes birth defects even when it is purifltd. In a joint used. statement with the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare on April 15. the Surgeon The pressing question is the course which General and the Secretary of Agriculture announced cancellation of registration of 2,4,5-T for should be followed now. At least four things are all uses around the home, for all uses in lakes, ponds and ditch-banks, and for all uses in food indicated: crops. Cancellation of a registration - as opposed to suspension of a registration - involves a 1) Compensate these ranchers. For the loss lengthy series of hearings and court proceedings. Today, more than 19 months after the of cattle, the extra expense of feeding, cancellation, 2,4,5-T is still in use and is still for sale on dealers shelves. The registration for telephoning, consulting specialists, having tests ________________________________________ CDQDmade. So much of their loss is obvious, but there Silvex --despite its chemical similarity to 2,4,5--T - has never been cancelled. 20