Document qdpk50XLq5MJ2aXQb2vJ1RbwG

*4wfr v UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 1 O F FIC E OF S O LID W ASTE A N D E M E R G E N C Y RESPONSE MEMORANDUM DATE: January 24, 1991 SUBJECT: Impact o f Falsified Monsanto Human Studies on Dioxin Regulations by EPA and Other Agencies -- January 24, 1991 NIOSH Study Reverses Monsanto Study Findings and Exposes Certain Fraudulent Methods FROM: Cate Jenkins, Ph.D., Chemist , Regulatory Development Branch (O S Q g ) ` Characterization and Assessment Division v TO: John West, Special Agent in Charge * Office of Criminal Investigations National Enforcement Investigations Center U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Building 53, Box 25227 Denver, Colorado 80225 (303) 236-5100 Kevin Guarino, Special Agent Office of Criminal Investigations National Enforcement Investigations Center, EPA The following information (in addition to my November 15 memorandum) should be useful in your criminal investigation of fraud by Monsanto. In particular, this should correct certain misinformation being disseminated by an unidentified EPA official (see attached press clippings), claiming that even if the Monsanto human studies on dioxins effects were fraudulent, this had no impact on protecting the public. The assertion was that EPA already imposed the most stringent controls possible, based on an animal study showing dioxins were potent carcinogens. This is not true. This memorandum outlines the direct changes in environmental regulations, as well as compensation by the government and court system, that would result if dioxins were classified as human, not just animal, carcinogens. The Monsanto studies subject to your investigation have played a major role in preventing the classification of Printed on Recycled Paper dioxins as human carcinogens.1 2 This memorandum discusses the following: 1. The two classification categories EPA uses to rank dioxin hazards (the "weight-ofevidence" and the "potency"), the impact the Monsanto studies on EPA's dioxin rankings, and the role of today's study (attached) by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health on exposing fraudulent methods in the Monsanto studies. 2. The impact of the wrongful classification of dioxins as "animal-evidence-only" carcinogens on environmental regulations, Vietnam veteran compensation, and private litigation against chemical companies. EPA's CLASSIFICATION OF DIOXINS BY WEIGHT-OF-EVIDENCE AS WELL AS POTENCY, AND IMPACT OF MONSANTO STUDIES ON THESE CLASSIFICATIONS \ Ranking by Certainty of Carcinogenicity (Weight-of-Evidence) Description o f EPA's Weight-of-Evidence Classification Scheme. The first classification method for carcinogens is by the "weight-of-evidence." The weight-of-evidence differentiates between carcinogens with positive human epidemiological evidence, only animal evidence, and the quality of the human and/or animal evidence. The weight-of-evidence ranking scheme, therefore, is according to the quality or certainty of data establishing carcinogenicity. The weight-of-evidence classification is independent from any estimate of the potency of the carcinogen, which will be discussed in the following section. The EPA ranking scheme for weight-of-evidence,2 similar to that of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), is as follows: Group A: "Human carcinogen" (sufficient evidence from human epidemiological studies). Group B l: "Probable human carcinogen" (at least limited evidence of carcinogenicity to humans). [Limited evidence in humans means that at least one adequate human epidemiological study exists demonstrating carcinogenic effects in humans.] 1 You both emphasized the importance for a criminal conviction of not only establishing fraud, but also the impact of this fraud on the regulatory process. My November 15 memorandum primarily addressed the regulatory consequences of Monsanto's failure to disclose dioxin contamination in a wide range of its consumer products. 2 U.S. EPA (September 24,1986) 5 1 FR 33992-34054, reprinted as The Risk Assessment Guidelines o f 1986, EPA Publication No. EPA/600/8-87/045, August, 1987 page 1-7. 3 Group B2: "Probable human carcinogen" (usually a combination of sufficient evidence in animals and inadequate data in humans). Group C: "Possible human carcinogen" (limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals in the absence of human data). Group D: "Not classified" (inadequate animal evidence of carcinogenicity). Group E: "No evidence of carcinogenicity for humans" (no evidence of carcinogenicity could be found in at least two adequate animal tests in different species, or in both human epidemiological studies and animal studies). A combination of Groups A and B1 are generally considered to constitute "human evidence of carcinogenicity." "Limited evidence in humans" means that at least one adequate human epidemiological study exists. The EPA Risk Assessment Guidelines3 describes the difference between Group A and B1 as depending on "the number of adequate human epidemiological studies that show comparable results on populations exposed to the same agent under different conditions." V Impact o f the Monsanto Studies on EPA 's Weight-of-Evidence Classification o f Dioxins. Dioxins are currently classified as Group B2 carcinogens (animal evidence only of carcinogenicity). This is because the Monsanto studies have been relied upon by EPA to negate a conclusion of human evidence (Group A or B l) for dioxins. Whenever a researcher published a positive human epidemiological study showing statistically significant excess cancers due to dioxin exposures, the Monsanto studies were held up as the definitive refutation of the positive human study. The Monsanto studies were deemed superior since the humans were known to be heavily exposed, but no excess risk of cancer was found in the Monsanto workers. January 24,1991 Study Reverses Monsanto's Findings and Exposes Flawed "Scientific Methods" in the Monsanto Studies. Although a complete audit of the Monsanto studies is still required to expose all instances of flawed data and the knowing, inappropriate use of such data (as promised by NEIC), it appears that the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has, in essence, passed judgement on the validity of some of the "scientific methods" used by Monsanto. NIOSH reexamined the health effects of dioxins on workers at the Monsanto plant which produced Agent Orange, along with exposed workers at other chemical manufacturing facilities.4 This study was published in today's New England Journal of Medicine (attached). There was a critical difference between the way in which NIOSH and Monsanto utilized the 3 Ibid., p. 1-6. 4 Fingerhut, M. et a l (January 24, 1991) N. Eng. J. Med., 324(4):212-218. 4 same data on the extremely rare cancer, soft tissue sarcoma (STS). The Monsanto study5 failed to include two cases of STS in its studies, while the NIOSH study did not find any scientific validity for such an exclusion. These workers correspond to NIOSH Cases 1 and 2, and are highly significant for the following reason: Out of a subgroup of 1520 workers at several U.S. chemical plants, having greater than 20 years of latency from the time of dioxin exposure, NIOSH found just three, cases of STS. These three cases alone (which included the two Monsanto cases) were enough to demonstrate a statistically s ig n ific a n t increase in STS because of the rarity of this type of cancer. The exclusion of the two STS cases did result in a negative finding of increased STS in the Monsanto studies, and would have had the same effect in the NIOSH study. Monsanto excluded Cases 1 for the capricious reason that the worker died after 1977, yet the Monsanto study was published in 1983, and the death of the worker was known. Interestingly, Monsanto included this case of STS in an earlier 1980 cancer mortality study,6 conveniently omitting the case in the later study. Monsanto excluded Case 2 from its studies on the grounds that pathological examination of tissues from the deceased worker indicated that the STS diagnosis on death certificate was incorrect. NIOSH did not use this excuse to exclude Case 2, since pathological examination of tissue in the exposed cohort would be inconsistent. There was no mechanism for examining tissue in the general population (the controls) to rule out similar incorrect diagnoses. Furthermore, there was a clear chain of custody problem with the tissue from Case 2. There were no established precautions, security, certification procedures, or adequate records to provide verification that Monsanto or other parties had not substituted tissue specimens to support the convenient reclassification of Case 2. In addition, the reclassification of STS for Case 2 to the vague category "carcinoma, poorly differentiated" leaves some doubt as to the genuine classification of the type of cancer. Monsanto also excluded Case 5, a maintenance worker undoubtedly exposed to high levels of dioxins, who was diagnosed as having died of STS. This case of STS was reported independently in the literature by physicians assisting the worker's union at the Monsanto plant7*NIOSH discussed this additional case of rare STS, but was forced, to exclude it since Monsanto had failed to establish exposure levels to dioxins for this worker. Dr. Raymond Suskind, on cross examination in 1985, failed to give any justification for not determining exposure levels for this particular worker. The inclusion of a broader range of exposed worker would have increased the power of the Monsanto studies to detect rare cancers such as STS. EPA did determine in 1983 that the whole Monsanto plant was highly I 5 Zack, J. A., W. R. Gaffey (1983) Environ. Sci Rev., 26:575-91. 6 Zack, J. R., R. R. Suskind, 1980, J. Occup. Med., 22:11-14. 7 Moses, M. and I. Selikoff (1981) Lancet, 1370. 16 Raymond Suskind (March 13, 1985), Boggess, et a i, v. Monsanto Company, Civil Action 81-2098-265. U. S. District Court, Southern District, West Virginia at Charleston, pp. 28706-28725. t. '; contaminated with dioxins, so that no worker could have escaped exposures. 5 Ranking of Dioxins by Strength of Carcinogenic Response (Potency) Description o f EPA's Ranking o f Carcinogens by Potency. The second method for classifying carcinogens, independent from the weight-of-evidence ranking, is by potency (amount necessary to illicit a carcinogenic response). Ih is is also called a "dose-response assessment," or a "quantitative risk assessment," where an estimate is made of the likely range of excess cancer risk associated with given levels of human exposure. Carcinogenic potency may be estimated either from human studies, animal studies, or structure-activity relationships to chemically similar carcinogens. Carcinogenic potency estimates are preferably based on human data when available. Impact o f Monsanto Studies on Dioxin Potency Estimates. The Monsanto studies may have fraudulently affected potency estimates made for dioxins by EPA, as well as the weightof-evidence classification. Today's NIOSH study, which reexamined the Monsanto data, found what appears to be a carcinogenic promotional effect by dioxins in Monsanto's workers as well as a direct carcinogenic response.9 Carcinogenic promotion may be seen as the acceleration of any incipient cancer process in the body to an early expression of frank malignancy. This was demonstrated by NIOSH as the elevation of all types of cancer, when data for cancer at different sites was compiled. The current EPA estimates of potency are based on an animal study where direct carcinogenesis only was found (liver cancer). As a result, EPA's potency estimate does not take into account the additional effects of carcinogenic promotion by dioxins. Another recent human epidemiological study also appears to demonstrate (upon closer scrutiny of the data) a carcinogenic promotional effect of dioxins in humans.10 CONSEQUENCE OF WRONGFUL CLASSIFICATION OF DIOXINS AS ANIMALEVIDENCE-ONLY CARCINOGENS The following describes the impact on EPA regulations, compensation of Vietnam veterans (and probably industrial workers through Workman's Compensation Boards), and private litigation that has resulted from the classification of dioxins as Group B2, animal-evidenceonly carcinogens. As stated before, the fraudulent Monsanto studies were responsible for this misclassification. Differential Environmental Regulations and Prioritizations Even when two carcinogens are estimated to have the same potency, EPA often allows greater exposures to, or de-prioritizes developing regulations for, those carcinogens without 9 Fingerhut, et cd., op. dt. 10Zober, A., P. Meserer, P. Huber (1990) Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health, 62:139-57. 9 t * 6 supporting human evidence of carcinogenicity (Group A or B l). The most important instance directly impacting dioxin controls is probably under the Clean Air A c t Emission Standards under the Clean A ir A ct (CAA). Under the CAA, the only hazardous air pollutants for which national emission standards have been set are for Group A or B l carcinogens, those having supporting human data.11 This is because non-A /B l carcinogens have been assigned a low priority, no-action policy under the CAA, despite the fact that Section 112(a)(1) of the CAA grants EPA the authority to promulgate emission standards for B2 or other category carcinogens.12 As a result of this de-prioritization, dioxin emissions standards have not been promulgated. A large volume source of dioxin emissions to the are from municipal incinerators, and are not regulated by the CAA The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) have attempted to remedy the failure of EPA to regulate a wide range of pollutants, including carcinogens in Groups A and B l, as well as B2. The CAAA established a list of pollutants which EPA must decide to regulate by a fixed schedule. EPA again will be allowed to prioritize new emission standards; only 10 categories on the list must have standards within a year. Dioxins would not be on the initial "top-ten" list unless categorized as either Group A or B l carcinogens, and therefore would not be required to be regulated for another 4 to 10 years. Releases o fHazardous Materials, Reportable Quantities (RQs). The quantity of a release into the environment of a hazardous material that must be reported to EPA (the RQ) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), varies by a factor of ten for Group A, B (Bl or B2), or C carcinogens. The potency estimate is combined with the weight-of-evidence ranking to arrive at a regulatory threshold, the "hazard ranking potency group."13, In other words, the RQ threshold for a spill of a carcinogen of medium potency, depending on whether that carcinogen is classified as Group A, B, or C, would be 1, 10, or 100 pounds, respectively. On the other hand, the RQ for a highly potent carcinogen classified as Group A, B, or C, would be 1, 1, or 10 pounds, respectively. Although dioxins are currently considered to be potent carcinogens, and consequently their RQ is the same as for a Group A carcinogens, there is heavy pressure and active programs at EPA to downgrade the potency estimate. 1140 CFR 61. There are currently air emission standards only for benzene (Group A), vinyl chloride (Group A), asbestos (Group A), beryllium (Group B l), inorganic arsenic (Group A), radionuclides. (Mercury, not considered a carcinogen, is subject to CAA emission standards due to other toxic effects.) 12For example, the authority to promulgate emission standards for methylene chloride, a Group B2 carcinogen, under the CAA was clearly iterated in 1985 (50 FR 42037). /A lth o u g h study and coordination with other statutes was proposed, no action under the CAA or other statutes has been taken. 13 54 FR 33421, August 14, 1989, 40 CFR 302.4. 7 Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs). Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), carcinogens are assigned MCLGs1415of zero if the carcinogen is classified as Group A, B l, or B2.19 Group C carcinogens are assigned a MCLG designed ; to reflect that there is "some possible evidence of carcinogenicity in animals." The MCLG l for Group C carcinogens, therefore, is only designed to prevent one excess cancer in a population of one hundred thousand (the 10`5risk level). No MCLGs have been developed for dioxins because of the false belief that dioxins will never be found in drinking water.16 ' Toxicity Characteristic (TC) for Hazardous Waste. Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), a material becomes a hazardous waste if leachable levels of toxicants reach a certain concentration, defined by the TC.17* The TC only attempts to protect populations from cancer risk at the 10'5 risk level (one cancer in 100,000) not only for Group A and B carcinogens, but. Group C carcinogens as well. Although the TC is consistent in the level of protection offered for Group A, B, and C carcinogens, it offers th lowest degree of protection (only at the 10'5risk level) for all of these carcinogen categories, compared to regulations under other EPA administered statutes. Vietnam Veterans Denied Compensation for Exposures to Agent Orange \ Veterans exposed to the dioxin-contaminated defoliant Agent Orange in Vietnam have been denied compensation for cancer, other health effects, and birth defects16 by the Veterans Administration (VA). This is because the VA requires a statistically significant finding of these effects in human, not animal, studies before granting compensation.19 For carcinogenicity, this would be the equivalent of classifying dioxins as Group A or B l (known human carcinogen or limited evidence of carcinogenicity in at least one adequate human stud). 14 MCLGs are non-enforceable health goals. The enforceable drinking water limits, the Maximum Concentration Limits (MCLs), must be set as close to the MCLG as is feasible, after considerations of the best available treatment technologies, and the cost for such treatment, according to Section 1412(b) of the SDWA. 15 40 CFR 141.11; 50 FR 46948-46950, Nov. 13, 1985; 52 FR 25727-25728. 16 50 FR 47008-47010, Nov. 13, 1985. 17 40 CFR 261.24; 55 FR 11798, March 29, 1990. 16 A new study from Harvard has demonstrated statistically significant increases in relative risk for Vietnam veteran fathers having children with one or more major , malformations, compared to non-Vietnam veterans. Aschengrau, A. and R. Monson (1990) Am. J. Public Health, 80:1218-24. 19 38 CFR 1.17 8 The decision of EPA to classify dioxins as Group B2, has directly impacted decisions by the VA, and Monsanto's fraudulent dioxin studies have been the basis for these EPA decisions. Thus, the causal effect of the Monsanto studies on the VA are within the scope of the present NEIC investigation. L Not only has the VA adopted for many years EPA's classification of dioxins as Group 6 2 (animal-evidence-only carcinogens), but the VA has also utilized EPA personnel to sit on its own Scientific Council of the Veterans' Advisory Committee on Environmental Hazards. This committee has been responsible for the continuing decisions for the past years that dioxins have not been demonstrated to cause human cancers, and thus Vietnam should not receive compensation for exposure-related health effects.20 The Monsanto studies have also been utilized by Australia and New Zealand as a basis for denying their Vietnam veterans compensation for health effects related to Agent Orange exposure. Horribly, the Australian Royal Commission set up to review dioxin health evidence lifted language prepared by Monsanto "as is" and used it for a determination that dioxins caused no cancers or other long term effects in humans. \ | Undoubtedly, various administrative proceedings before Workman's Compensation Boards ; have also resulted in unsuccessful claims because dioxins are not classified as human 1carcinogens. This is also properly before the NEIC, since such decisions are the direct result of EPA's leadership role in not classifying dioxins as human carcinogens, based on the Monsanto studies. Thwarted Private Litigation In addition to the denial of compensation to veterans through VA administrative procedures and workers through various compensation boards, private litigation has been thwarted by , EPA's failure to classify dioxins as either Group A or B l. Suits by Vietnam veterans, Agent Orange production workers, towns exposed to spills of Monsanto's dioxin-laced products, citizens around dioxin-contaminated Superfund sites have all been hampered by the fact that EPA has concluded that there are no adequate human studies showing long-term carcinogenic effects of dioxins. Much of the physical documentation offered to support your investigation is transcripts of such legal proceedings where the Monsanto studies figured , predominantly in defending the responsible chemical companies. Further, EPA personnel have even participated in such legal proceedings as expert witnesses 20 The recent decision by the VA to compensate veterans for Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma z was stated to be based on "compassion," not a causal relationship to dioxin exposures. The VA has yet to codify a preliminary decision to compensate veterans for soft tissue sarcoma, purportedly based on a conclusion of dioxin causation. 9 on behalf of the chemical company.21 These EPA officials dutifully parroting EPA's position that dioxins have not been shown to be human carcinogens, based on the Monsanto studies. The .White House itself recognized what the impact would be on private litigation of classifying dioxins as human carcinogens. A White House memorandum coerced the Centers for Disease Control not to find cancer and other health effects in our Vietnam veterans, since this would have a profound effect on litigation by private citizens around Supeifund sites, where even higher exposures to dioxins was probable:22 The bill [to award veteran's compensation for Agent Orange] will make it far more difficult to stop broader victims compensation schemes involving hazardous wastes and substances. Dioxin - die toxic ingredient in Agent Orange - is a major issue in this area (Love Canal and Times Beach are largely dioxin exposure cases); we will be in the tenuous position o f denying dioxin exposure compensation to private citizens while providing benefits to veterans fo r m many instances lower levels o f exposure. CONCLUSION ' In my opinion, it would be a terrible miscarriage of justice for EPA to simply reclassify dioxins now as "human-evidence" Group A or B1 carcinogens, and let the Monsanto fraud investigation languish. Such a reclassification without concomitant prosecution of Monsanto may prevent injustices in the future, but does little to ameliorate the many years of harm (lenient regulations, denied compensation, unsuccessful litigation) caused by the fraudulent studies. cc: Admiral E. Zumwalt Senator Thomas Daschel Congressman Ted Weiss American Legion National Vietnam Veteran's Coalition Oklahoma Agent Orange Foundation Independent International Agent Orange Network Vietnam Veterans of New Zealand Greenpeace, U.SA. 21 Dr. Renate Kimbrough is one known example, who testified on behalf of Monsanto and probably other industrial defendants. An ongoing case where Dr. Kimbrough may be involved on behalf of industiy responsible for polychlorinated biphenyl pollution, which are contaminated with chlorinated dioxins and furans. 22 U.S. House of Representatives (1990) The Agent Orange Coverup: A Case o f Flawed Science and Political Manipulation. Twelfth Report by the Committee on Government Operations, H R 101-672. Earth First Natural Resources Defense Council Environmental Defense Fund National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides Lennart Hardell, M.D., Ph.D. Mikael Eriksson, M.D. Olaf Axelson, MJ). Friedaman Rohleder, M.D. Mike Petruska, Chiefs Regulatory Development Branch Carrol G. Wills, Acting Director, NEIC, EPA/Denver Donald Barnes, Ph.D, EPA Science Advisory Board William Farland, Ph.D., EPA Office of Research and Development 10 \ II I I i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 0&C-I 4e )W OFFtCE OF ENFORCEMENT MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Allegations of F] Petition FROM Michael J. Walke] Acting Associate Pesticides and Tc Connie Musgrove Acting Director^ TO: Mark Greenwood Director, Office of Toxic Substances Erich W. Bretthauer Assistant Administrator for Research and Development Dwain Winters Coordinator, Greenpeace Section 21 Petition Workgroup The recent petition filed by Greenpeace USA requests that the Agency commence an investigation to determine whether nfraudulent/invalid studies" have been submitted to the Agency and relied upon by the Agency in its decision-making with respect to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlprodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD). it is our intent to investigate these allegations and, if appropriate, evaluate the full range of enforcement options available. T h a ^ i g p e e of this memo is to request that you and your staff refBSSllegations of scientific- misconduct, data fraud or w r o n g d o i ^ B n l a t i n g to this matter to Ms. Helene Ambrosino, Office o r 'B S o r c e m e n t , Toxics Litigation Division, FTS 475-9501. Ms. Ambrosino will coordinate with appropriate Agency staff, such as Michael Calhoun, who coordinates criminal investigation requests for OCK. Any questions concerning such allegations should also be referred to Ms. Ambrosino. Please do not-initiate contact with Monsanto. BASF or other potential targets of the investigation without direct approval of enforcement personnel. Should these parties initiate contact with you or a member of your staff, please have the call referred to Ms. Ambrosino immediately. Enclosed is EPA Ethics Advisory 90-2 for your information. Should members of the public make inquiries about the status of an Agency investigation, it would be appropriate at this time to report the following: "EPA fully intends to investigate any allegations of fraud and, if appropriate, evaluate the full range of enforcement options available to address legitimate charges of misconduct, it is EPA policy to neither confirm nor deny the existence of a pending criminal investigation, but to the extent that the progress of any civil investigation can be disclosed without compromising the investigation itself, EPA will disclose such information to the public." Your.full cooperation is appreciated. Please distribute this memorandum and the attachment to your staff. cc: Pat Alberico, Office of Criminal Enforcement Richard Emory, Office of criminal Enforcement John west, NEIC Mary Adler, Office of Criminal Enforcement' John Kasper, Press Office # \ ADELAIDE AMSTERDAM ANCHORAGE AUCKLAND . BOSTON BRUSSELS BUENOS AIRES H1CAGO COPENHAGEN DUBLIN I FORT LAUDERDALE GOTHENBERG HAMBURG LEWES - U.K. LONDON . LUXEMBOURG MADRID . MONTREAL OSLO PALMA DE M ALLORCA PARE ROME SAN FRANCISCO SAN JOSE - COSTA RICA SEATTLE STOCKHOLM SYDNEY TORONTO VANCOUVER VIENNA Greenpeace news' - W ASHINGTON. WORLD PARK B A SE-A N TA R C TIC A . ZURICH Greenpeace USA 1436 U Street NW - Washington DC 20009 - Tei (202) 462-1177 . Tlx 89-2359 Fax (202) 462-4507 EMBARGOED UNTIL: NOVEMBER 29,1990 CONTACTS: Joe Thornton, Greenpeace Research Analyst Pat Costner, Greenpeace Research Director Lynn Thorp, Greenpeace Toxics Campaign Julie Brenegar, Greenpeace Media 202-462-1177 202-462-1177 202-319-2479 202-319-2490 GREENPEACE EXPOSES FRAUD IN INDUSTRY DIOXIN STUDIES; CALLS FOR EPA ACTIONS TO PREVENT DIOXIN POLLUTION WASHINGTON, DC -- Exposing fraudulent and manipulated science In several key Industry studies of dioxin's health effects on humans, the international environmental group Greenpeace will petition the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Thursday, November 29, to revoke all past decisions based on these studies. The petition also calls on EPA -- based on new evidence showing dioxin to be far more toxic t h a n .previously thought -- to Implement a national strategy to eliminate major dioxin sources. Greenpeace will submit the petition to EPA under the authority of the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act and release it at a 10.00 a.m. news conference at the National Press Club, Lisagor Room, 14th and F Streets N.w., Washington, D.C. The Greenpeace petition outlines major flaws in the design, conduct and interpretation of key dioxin studies conducted or funded by Monsanto, one of the world's largest chemical companies. The studies, published between 1980 and 1984, were conducted on workers exposed to dioxin during accidents and th routine production of herbicides at Monsanto's plant in Nitro, West Virginia. Scientists, attorneys and EPA whistleblowers have raised concerns about the studies since 1985; the Greenpeace petition contains the most thor ough analysis of the studies to date and the first move for official action to discontinue their use in government policy. Greenpeace analysis of several of the studies shows that dozens of workers with cancer and heart disease, who were known to be exposed to dioxin, were inappropriately shifted into unexposed "control" groups or excluded from the studies altogether. In some cases, those classifications were contrary to the studies' stated criteria; in others, the criteria were designed specifically to allow exposed workers to be misclassified. Similar concerns have recently, been raised about manipulations in a study conducted by the German chemi cal company BASF on dioxin-exposed workers at one of its European plants. (more) The results of the Monsanto and BASF studies have been the basis for claims that not one human death can be attributed to dioxin, and for suggestions that humans are not affected by dioxin in the same manner as laboratory animals. They have also been the basis for arguments against compensation for veterans exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam. The fraudulent studies have also played a key role in SPA policy. EPA has considered thes studies among tlie most important epidemio logical studies of dioxin and has thus approached dioxin's human toxicity with some skepticism, in recent weeks, EPA's Office of Criminal Investigations has begun an Inquiry into Monsanto's conduct in the studies and other dioxin-related issues. "There is a clear pattern of fraudulent misconduct in the dioxin science performed by the chemical Industry and its*Indentured aca dmies," said-Dr. . Samuel Epstein, Profssor of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois*'in Chicago, who supported the Greenpeace petition. He called for professional sanctions against industry and academic scientists who knowingly misrepresent critical public health information. "The failure of EPA, the Centers for Disease Control and the Veter ans Administration to take action on dioxin, despite overwhelming evidence of dioxin's great toxicity in humans and laboratory ani mals, is unprecedented and unacceptable," Dr. Epstein added. Dioxin is still considered the most toxic synthetic chemical known to science. Its effects on laboratory animals at the lowest doses ever tested have included several types of cancer, birth defects and developmental abnormalities, reproductive dysfunction. Immune sup pression, neurological toxicity, and damage to the liver, kidneys and skin. Recent studies of humans exposed to dioxin have shown elevated lvels of many of these health effects among workers, soldiers and communities exposed to dioxin in the U.S., Europe and Vietnam. "In the last few years, study after study has shown that dioxin is even more toxic to humans and animals than previously thought," said Pat Costner, Greenpeace's Research Director. "But EPA, bowing to industry's lobbyists and bogus studies, has refused to take action to prevent the continuing tide of dioxin pollution." Despite demands from environmentalists, community groups, labor, and the recommendation of many scientists, EPA still has not implemented a strategy to phase-out processes that result in dioxin pollution, such as chlorine bleaching of paper pulp and the Incineration of garbage and hazardous waste. Instead, EPA has moved to lower its toxicity estimate for dioxin and is allowing states to weaken their own standards, using industry-funded studies for justification. On the release date, Greenpeace and communities threatened by dioxin /contamination will present the petition at events in California, New ' York, Missouri, and the Great Lakes Basin. #### Endenhuret, Angleis m a y ` need to beware today because temperatures are expected to drop and clouds wM arrive by afternoon. Nsn^/MMUMWI Company's Dioxin Studies Under Fire iy Carolyn Colwell r*rrwhiter Achemical company's studies showingth at workers ore not been cerhiusly harmed fayexposure to drasrin ave comeunder fire by Greenpeace and new scrutiny y the US* Environmental Protection Agency. The-EPA baa launched a criminal investigation of 'hether the dioxin studies by Monsanto Corp., a St. ouis-baaed chemical oom puy, ere fraudulent, ae* lading to an internal EPA memo. And the environlenfeal organization Greenpeace has petitioned the tute for Occupational Safety and Health, suggested th at leaser exposure i not dangerous. A Monsanto spokesman in St. Louis said earlier this month the company welcomes the EPA investigation and called Greenpeace's allegation th at the studies ora flawed "a bald-facedlie" th at the environmentalgroup is using as part o f its fund-raising drive. Dan R. Bishop, Monsanto's director of corporate communications, said the company thinks the EPA investigation is 'th e only way to put the m atter to r e s t" He added in a press release that, "The company stands by its findings, welcomesany legitimate scienti PA to reassess the validity of the studies and the fic audit and is absolutely certain that its studies wifi geuuy'a regulation,o f dioxin, which Greenpeace al- continue to withstand legitimate scientific scrutiny." ges has been adversely influenced by the Monsanto In addition, Bishop said that before news of the group would have been diluted by the indusioo of unexposed workers, Jenkins explained. This issue was raised in a successful federal suit against Monsanto by workers a t one of its plants in EastSt. Louis,111.Monsanto hasappealed thatverdict Greenpeace raised the isunequestion in the critique of the Monsanto studies, which it appended to its peti tion. The critique was based on court documents and published research. "The Greenpeace analysis of sev eral of the studies show th at dozens of workers with cancer and heart disease, who were known to be ex- - posed to dioxin, were inappropriately shifted into un exposed 'control' groups o r excluded from the studies altogether," Greenpeace said in November. Joe Thornton, author of the Greenpeace critique, NEW8DAY, TUESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1661 search. .EPA investigation first surfaced late last year, Mon said in a telephone interview this month: "We're rely- The studies fay Monsanto o f workers a t its Nitro, santo bad independently requested an EPA audit of ' mg on scientists whoare paid and hired by the corpora f.Vo., plant havebeen relied on by the federalguvern- Its studies "to settle this m atter for once and for all." tions who are producing these chemicals to formulate icnt to show th at dioxin exposure haa not been harm- A spokesman for the EPA in Washington, D.C.. polices and these regulations . . . We really need to il to humans and does not require more stringent Dwayne Winters, said earlier this month th at he can rethink our reliance on corporate-paid experts." iguladon or classification as asignilicant human car* not confirm or deny th at a criminal investigation is The Greenpeace petition also asks that the EPA not nogen. H ie g m n u n e o t and chemical contpanies under way, but said the agency is studying the issues rely n the studies as pari of its regulatory efforts or awe used the studies to discredit claims by Vietnam raised by Greenpeace's Nov. 29 petition. W inters said assessments ofcaranogemc risk an d th at the agency Heronsth at theirexposure to the diaxm-contaminaL- the agenqy will rrepond to the petition by Feb. 28. establish a national dioxin-elimination program to 1herbicide Agent Orange haa damsged their health. According to a memo from EPA chemist Dr. Cate control the release of dioxin into the environment. A study published in a medical journal last week Jenkins to the EPA's Office o f Criminal Investiga Under Section 21 ofthe Toxic Substances Control Act,. mwed th a t chemical workers exposed to 500 times tions in Denver, one ofthe key flaws in the M onsanto. theEPA basuntilFeb.28toansw erthepetition. "lean normal amount o f dioxin for a t least a year are studies was the inclusion of exposed workers in the tell you that we take any Section 21 request rather aarly 50 percent more likely to develop some kinds of unexposed group and vice versa. Consequently, the seriously," W inten said. If the petition is denied, the p sneer. The study, carried out fay the National Insti foqidetice ofcancers and other iffnesapoin the exposed- petitioner con goto fedcxrioourtfoca bearing. . . ** Our 114th Year . NUMBER 49 THE O N LY NATIONAL VETERAN S' NEW SPAPER WASHINGTON, D.CL, MONDAY, 10 DECEMBER 1990 75e PER CC EPA Probing Alleged M anipulation O f Dioxin H ealth Studies Washington, DC (UPI)-T he En vironmental Protection Agency is investigating chargesthatachemi cal company improperly manipu lated scientific studies to mini mize the possible health threat posed by dioxin, officials confinned 29 Nov. Disclosure o f the EPA probe came as Greenpeace, the interna tional environmental group, re leased a report detailing alleged irregularities in studies sponsored by Monsanto Co., a makerof pes ticides and other chemical prodnets. Greenpeacealso filed apetition with the EPA urging the agency to tighten its controls on dioxin. The petition maintainedtheEPA heav ily relied on the Monsanto studies in.setting its regulatory policies, but agency officials said that was not the case. Hie- petition cited "credible concerns that the agency's exist ing (dioxin) human effects data base is polluted by incorrect infor mation, that the human health ef fects of (dioxin) may be far worse than originally believed, and that the polluted data has led the agency to 'go soft* on (dioxin).** In its report, Greenpeace said Those critics say while laboratory the EPA's Office o f Criminal En animal studies suggest high toxic forcement had begun preliminary ity, harmful effects have not been inquiries into possible manipula verified in exposed humans. tion o f three key dioxin studies Dioxin is a by-product in the sponsored by Monsanto. manufacture o f certain pesticides Asked about the Greenpeace and herbicides, most notably report, an EPA official who asked Agent Orange, the defoliant not to be identified said: "There is widely used during the Vietnam an investigation underway." The War. It also is generated in incin official declined to elaborate on eration and the bleaching of wood the specifics of the investigation. pulp for white paper products, Glynn Young, a spokesman for. The three Monsanto studies at Monsanto, said the company had issue examined health effects not been notified of any EPA in among workers at the company's vestigation and that it stood by the herbicide plant in Nitro, WV, who studies as sound and unbiased. At were exposed to dioxin during the same time, he said Monsanto routine operations from 1955 to had asked the EPA to review the 1977 as well as in a 1949 industrial studies again in tight of the allega accident that released larger tions. amounts o f the contaminant Young said the allegations The studies, published from against the studies arose from liti 1980 to 1983, are important be gation against Monsanto in which cause they represent one o f the Greenpeace was an active partici-' 'most comprehensive assessments pant He characterized the Green ' o f dioxin's health impact on hu peace reportas a *YehashMofissues . mans. raised in court * The Monsanto studies found no The Monsanto studies have conclusive evidence o f serious been cited by some scientists in health efTects-such as cancer or challenging federal policies that liver damage-due to dioxin expo generally categorize dioxin as a sure. As with other studies, the highly toxic agent to humans. Monsanto reports suggest the only Joseph R, Hem, f*H, n alfom l w of th Purpf* H ttrt (MOPH), praatnti of th Ho u m Valoren' A tfitra Com M O PK booh,aLegacy ot ihe Purpl consistent ailment among expost workers was chloracne, a seve form of skin lesions. Among other allegations, tl Greenpeace report suggested tl Monsanto studies were manip laled in that: GAO: VA Hom e Loan Program May Lose $2.5 M illion By Darin Haugen A rash o f housing fo re clo su res million outstanding home loans were being serviced by the pro gram. These loans had an esti- happened in places tike Houston, Oklahoma City and Denver," he added."Now it looks like theprob lem is going to move into the Northeast and the Midwest, where a general recession is likely to be he said. But now, the program is phir meting into the red. The prese crisis, the VFW spokesman sai can be blamed on two factors: tl souring economy and the Reag; administration-mandated VA c vestment from its home loan poi folio in the earlv 1980s. it, Greenpeace n id Qlhose critics say while laborauxy Gee of CriminalEn- -ianimal studies suggest high toxic- 1 begun preliminary, ity, harmful effects have-not been posable`m ahulai"vpifed ^exposed humansu`j hey dioxin studies.;*' Dioxin is aby-productinThe Monsanto/"'!.; : ;!//* manufacture of pertain pesticides, mt the Grecnpeacc^and^b^iridei^ mos^notably \ official who asked/' Agent ' Orange, ...the defoliant tifiedsaidf?lhereisj^ widely .used during the.Vietnam on underway" !he'>;WaxvItako is generated in indu- ned to elaborate a '. eration and the bleaching of wood 3f the investigation. pulp for white paperproducts^/, mg, a spokesman for 'j -\The three Monsanto studies at id the company!(had /Jbsue* examined .health! effects ed of! any EPAjh vc among workers at the company's id thatit stood by the Yherbicide plant in Nitro, WV, who md and unbiased. A t'w ereexp osed to dioxin during e, he said Monsanto i routine operations from-1955 to e EPA to review ther; 1977as well as in a 1949industrial mtightoftfaeaUegi-^.accident that "released larger f- > amounts o f the contaminant. -S tf/ aid the:4allegations'- :vThe studies/published; from* :-*i*.*i**. *1 f-. .--- " *r v- Joaaph R Hama, kft, national aanfor vfoo commandar of tha Military Ortfar tidies arose from liti-%1980 to 1983, are .im portant^* of thaPurpta Haarl(UOPH), praaanta Rap.Ctiriatophar Smith (R-HJ),a mambar &Monsanto in which..cause they represent, one, o f the of tha Houaa Vatarana' Affairs Commlttat, wtth a commamorativa copy of tha vas an'active'pertici-'%ost comprehensive"assessments* 'MOPtfa^ooR^Uoacyel tbtAupteHMiLSiifcr; racterized the Green- "of dioxin's health impact on h u -. tsa^reb&shTofissues.mans. ^consistent ailment among exposed AA Disease rates among dioxin- rt v j* . \ The Monsanto studies found no"Tworkers'was'chloracne, a severe exposed workers were compared santo* studies have conclusive evidence o f serious >-form of skin lesions.' -V':|S to illness in a rcontror group of y some scientists m health effects-such as cancer or Among' other allegations, the workers who supposedly were not federal policies that liver damage-due to dioxin expo Greenpeace report suggested the exposed, but actually were. As a xgorize dioxin as a sure. As with other studies, the Monsanto studies were rnanipu-' result, the report said, differences agent to humans. Monsanto reports suggest the only - lated in i h a c ^ i.' i * . EPA Probing, Pg. 15 isacked by the Reagan admini- ,and the fact that it will be incurring further losses really . happened in places like Houston;?crisis, the VFW spokesman raid, N'comesas no surprise to us." ' .Oklahoma City and Denver,* be /.can be blamed op twofactois: t h e / :/T his notwithstanding, the GAO ^ i > \ : added."Nowlooks like theprob-^iouring economy and the Reagan^report indicated that foreclosures landing'home; loans ; lem is going to move into tbe^adminbtratioo-inandated VA d i- actually dropped from 49,000 in serviced by .the pro- ' Northeastand the Midwest,wbereT^-vestmeni from its borne kan port: *`Fiscal Year (FY) 1988 to43,000 in . loans-had an esti? a general recession is likely.to be folio in theeariy 1980s. ^'v>;' *Q :FY 1989. - alue of $152 billioo- %felt most." ' * \ ' 'frr ^.^."W ithout a strong portfolio, the?> tfThis was the first year the VA f which wareguaren- ^ * While some analysts believe / program became unfit forthediffi-v experienced a lessening of home 'A ..- f c / - \ 1 the program was never intended to cult financial times which were on loan foreclosures since 1980,** the n to the home loans, be self-sufficient, others claim the fth e way," be said.. v- V * report said .' J * *' ' ' * ' ' :Some legislative changes were Bsuea- tor- property , ? "sasicauy, me v a nome man session of the See GAO, Pg. 15 ihe VA through fo re-: program was never self-sufficient". aier resold.'^" *i.i- * because the government was issu -' t majority of-igceni ing money through transfers with ' occurred in 'energy* the revolving fund," he said, i economies were de- ! A spokesman for the Veterans Page 3 mse their natural re- - ofForcizn Wars (VFW) in Wash- m+t+m*i -- *--*n-- ......... r ^iri i j .-------- w t m m i *m > m '*' percent fee from everyone, under f ultimately make tbe older Loan f new law veterans will be required GuaiinteeFund still more'relisnt ~ to pay from zero to 1.875 percent^'on congressional appropriations^ o f the home's down payment'to'^since new'loan origination fees1 .*' receive a loon. This, according to ^w ill be deposited in th^.new fund, . t h e House Subcommittee, staffer^f^^While tbe future losses don't Is expected to.reduce the number ' count against us," the House Ap* - o f loan defaults and subsequently $ prqpriatioos aide said, ^ m m m reduce foreclosures ;jn ;the long i je ss money will be available, for -- . run.*. : ,the V A ~id the government gen* Tbe law also created ."The r ertlly-in tbe future."* :V y '} t Vv - EPA officials said that,as with ;/'** ` other t chemicals, ' t h e a g e n c y *.\ ; largely developed its dioxin poli-.. f r . fa & *** ^ e t t teetw o ^ cie* >0Q ihe haris o f laboratory groups were muted. / ^ ammafstudies in which relatively .7.- ^ Dioxin-exposed workers/low'doses o fdioxin caused cancer, \ ' were arbitrarily placed into differ^ birth defectsand liver,kidney and em groups that were studied scpa- V- tv.TM Hamag '> V -^T liegnjui^cxeip^jn ^ !">n>ber flat u becwne ^ observed Id Rudies o i Viet- i; Orange-nor' In foresryw citas naradmih e r n ie in o se i t. w*1*1 long.tenn occupation! ex- . heart to disease w among m i mm dioxin-ex- ?' " * O R t o .- o r l.t o wo^ eri W|th long-term oc- *. . . excluded from some studies. "y ; p ' Greenpeace said its report, cn- i f *' The EPA' has 'acknowledged tilled "Science for Sale,": was J, the uncertainty about`dioxin's based on independent analysis o f ' impact on human health, but the the Monsanto studies, internal'1 agency has decided*ti>. err on the Monsanto memos and the sworn J ride ofcaulion and has pushed the testimony ofMonsantoemployees v paper ind and others`to re- . and consultants. , - -> ' .: , ducc dioxin ^tarrunatioa.* ,, (ntw tfSM a) or mM is a m o iu u Dots Movl* Vidoos, P.O. Box 130, Remington, VA 22134. *A1 Video's Guaranteed* PREMIUM \ \ : 21" LONGSTEM ROSES $ 3 9 W *-- ' FREE DELIVERY-USA OlTTaOXED-MAJOR CRBKT CARDS tjfv h C jfa m n Worldwide , 1-IOM5S-AVIS ` America's 24 Hour Florist ,W(iJGMvftverfnlWded the ISM Inauguration bMRpiRh bRfMMRi*t.ftWRe.dlfMtWiHWmC*d***>i yeM,lfik. M|l nFWn, hft.bbMup lwMaiiNeM, traapeIiiIind(R ldlRneWt wUiwil\ri ItdWv.DwPT*a.fM.--NMoa..dHtvaIeMtrddDMaO(eW.MnMMCTa-MM'nrK-mUaMmmB.mm, THE SOURCE COM ICS AND G AM ES 30% DISCOUNT ONALL NEWCOUCO 10% DISCOUNT ... OHALL NEWOAICS SEND FOR YOUR FREE CATALOG wnCATE VOUH1KTERE9Tm COUCS,OAKES, OR BOTH ... WSSHrTOAHYAPOrPO THE SOURCE . V M B.N .8N ELLM AVE ST.PAUL.HNU1M 1400-870-3113____ 1 :\;x findingwar her homi south of O'Fallon. Tha homa waa.daatroyi >tfby stroIng winds Tuesday aLfTte.rSnpoenocne/.PUoist-aDrtyipaetnodh Sana, wart nothome at tha time oftha storm. But theirparakeet, "To--to,1------h--o-m--e-,-a-n-d--K-s-u--rv-ived. irquctte State P u t *with Mends in a field north of 0*Frt- :' . w; ' *.ton'whenhe was apparently picked op S m e d .lssv e st^ .' bya strong wind In Tuesday's storm Menib.Chfeajoi and slammed asalnst trees. He re swere Injured Inthe- mained In critical condition with head with four.fanalntof Injuries at SL John'a Mercy Medical One li John Frer> Centerlate Wednesday. i, who Wti huntlnt . Only three people suffered minor Injurtea to Colo In Illinois, a nffcnfrom Chicago who UIAB1#, M i M to ta l t o d i v , diroti|i 11-foot- ..." ^ ^ 0? d ll ? !.? ,c u d ? deep water In a closed, tladuc! for Oleaster, aiw utlvM Wednesday was lie only person killed . c8 ld BM Pdid iiwa damage to U a series of liojm* that tattered the > ; pUnt.ln lha s r S s ^ iS e ^ r is ts iuta. n r 11MUSiUwwetnWHSSHMm 1IA teelTO IlliraieU n ' s N eew1 Prem ier i; Nams Rivals To Cabinet CompiledPramNet s Services LONDON -- f rime Minister John Major welcomed his defeated rivals Into hb Cabinet oh Wednesday and ealled for a natli n In which all may prosper accordil i to "their talent, their application and their good fortune." "I don't promlde you that It wilt be easy, and I don't piombe yu that It wDoilwl bniengq. uS*i.ctka-,"f-tehrJaij*oirngsold outside M10 prime minister b;OQueen Elizabeth IL "If you forgfv1 mB e." lie added, "1 will |o Into No. 10 atralfht away and makeasUrt right now." Major, at i t tha youngest prime mtnbter of the century, bad displayed both talent and tenacity In overcom ing childhood poverty and rising rap idly through the government Xtwaa hb fortune to be the popular choice of a party torn by rebellion- agalnat bis patron, Margaret Thatcher. Hours after saying fhrewefl to her. Major announced t new Cabinet Uoe- SeeMAJOB, Page IS David Storting wlit (right), prasldsnt of 6al*AIra Insurance Co.; andeonleavingthacourthouse InJefferson City state laseeking receivership ofthofirm. *- Presides! Arthur presentata from and the chairman nnee Committee, 12Infederal court *s ofdrugdealing, iosed that he was wneyer Insurance lad last year, has come sp frosy. Bel-Alre funds adownedbyThlg- pen lb Arizona and Louisiana. Also disclosed Wednesday; Biumeyer signed a letter that of fered to post $30,000 of Del-Airt's fundsas a personal recognizance bond for Thigpen In US. District Court to Cheyenne. Wyo. Thigpen pleeded guilty SepL 13 to charges of violating federal taw In the process of bribingthe Wyominginsur ance commissioner. Seven tmployeei vereretyn- > >SeoBEL-atre, page XS Greenji ace, Chemist Challenge Monsai ito On Dioxin Findings ByWnn.mH.Pil hrlM The EPA chemist, Cate Jenkins, Soit-Dfipiteh W illi ogtoh & also urged a criminal Investigation of Washington}* Greenpeacq and a whistle-blower it (he Envlrommen* the Arm, alleging that It covered up evidence ef dioxin's 111effects. tai Protection Agency are Accusing A Monsanto spokesman sql'd Monsnnto Co. of fraudulently unCder* Wednesday that there appeared to be sitting the health isks of dioxin. a criminal Inquiry under way and ao Both the Intern tidnal environmen declined to comment on Jenkins* tal organization a d the EP^`chemist charges. . called upon the a ency to conduct an ` But the company Mid that Green- Independent eval atlon of what they ee'i allegations were untnie and say are flawed M<nsanto studies Indi- at the firm stood by the studies. He eating that dioxin has little hhattfc tf- noted that Monsanto sent a letter to feet on humane. ' See DIOXIN,Page II D UNI *SHUM JSUWbMiaUH k E c o l o g y i s f a r l i f e , n o t j u s t i o b & h & ridi te <k r- 5 dbmn. a ^product of pii a m tore im jw y or pefafr pcpem aldic waste todnerstkw and dedsorcs. f acueral other fdustrial processes. Dioxin For exantie. we no longer buBdfinely Mol (sag 00 M is-one o f the nest toxic synthetic shoal pulp n ib L cities heeawm it rests .to - H > on Idler trees. Strioualjr. F o n sr US. a s knownto aacnce. much to osra up Thesame lo ts apnfxt pmtdMl RaeiM Reagan* d w fo fsb C j wenpeea =he aggressive erriron- to mast biaLess dedsioaa That's ecaJorf- VoQ DonaM A epc, daincd that tree* fouled flbt sol "M iiliiiiidi. car rrtimtitt. lades* awntal *d*f*r orgasuxatioo, p*i wpf d the US. E oR noM tal Ppotectioa Agency ca)tooon*_ -t It n a resMiable assunptm that Mold trill teses. he tried to sh e tss befiete, on Thursday to"revoke all past derisions warming, [nsoos in ground water, -ire bare Giired no problems. Ttaaea were the based on there readies.* Gncnpeae says esoae hole, rel pcUutaon, and add rein re afoin, near aoectific ewtenen shows dioxin to be unaeuve I s deSnyag before our eyas Ttod kind of ency talk has beea earned fat more lade %human than previously arefcitectutaljeweb n d i as Prague aad v3 he theWhite Bouse though gives half a tlnught Cracow, wred not be e i severe had-tth d a w John Sumnu, I*r--lirtrwit Bash's lepateW i w n tla s here disagreed link beam; the euhgy and economcy Ooaalc Regan, would soon r e r ie It A about diman fooears and are notlikely been acfcncvadged 3*<r 50 yean ago.: i xmaa*h3go he foUed.br a mew wtddser, to to Teach oemran ground just to please Instead. th John Swauuus of the wardkillthe Clean Air A c that Canadians tape Greenpeace Banoroonte profits are not beep brayxc Musk is nancy. If pure w U dcsnupaadnh the only reason Or toe ionpasw. Sdudffe comes to sfcwe, the White Mouse ha sad. I .Ssmrtu is not atone. Many dfoosaun reputations ere c state The U.9: pvem* renealedlp. xsuwirm about the eoonasQT aong the Potomac. The shreggte for (Rent could re tdfole for billions o f<bUars yill lop w 'numril") %S> environment can never atop be endamages if tfe oourts found that omen But we *4l walce ay even the brass- o ne person's pollution -is another game people earner while federal ikgula* dead in jcKks. Ratfe them nagfo penon* profit. toe Twnfcrd af fpwHfc fr^Mi enough ua(QJbcy see that cookigksd* c i Far wampla Beeoase h a ttd d s are b~o, the issue c environmental nesionsi- nomics can o d -- Out the oott-beiugi verj psnfluhto. dwnical indfcslry gz&nts *aiE^yis not goinfto be settled But tot all analysis ofa y maier eeonooiic deririm sad; at Monsanto aad BSAF new eland is UealL Peopleere beginning to rvxKxa n e t mdxfogKobahle core o f ooiopal accused-- not by any court bat tv pri (he ecowonrie cos of pollution is toe seri- oonseqnauocs vateorFcntzatkm --cTpawnotlngarientifl- oarto be left to emvewtidnal eeonomsts. With tedh. satiooal ffuemreents eaeiw calb fraudulent studies nttniiwaring dan- Snowly but singr. an cmergiag aeartom- where will vroeup ha time. > BeraasDdated withti ' fe (LsdpUne oflfee rente hope. Call U"eco* Bogdao fiKfog to.a Canadian freafohp Tka particularly aaity toffsal economy**-- a method of foctreisg writerirony~ R totoghaA C vfAa. ecL*'icry p a '7<^' rjrtoe A^crfrif-S * 0 W PX . V* J o u r n a l O m m -trc ? [Via Greenbase] S i o r \ t s Ok . f A v ^ a ^ o - r* k / [2] 3Q-Nov-90 0i58 BST l (Editors! Repeating oarliar story) BPA probing allaged manipulation of dioxin health studies By GEORGE LOBSEN2 , | * *' WASHINGTON (UPI) - The Environmental Protection Agency is investigating charges that a chemical company improperly manipulated scientific studies to minimise the possible health threat posed by dioxin, officials confirmed* Disclosure of the SPA probe came as Greenpeace, the international environmental group, released a report Thursday bydetailing alleged irregularities in studies sponsored Monsanto Co*, a maker of pesticides and other chemical products* Greenpeace also filed a petition with the BPA urging the agency to tighten its controls on dioxin* The petition maintained the BPA heavily relied on the Monsanto studies in setting its regulatory policies, but agency officials said that was not the case* .The petition cited "credible concerns that the agency's existing (dioxin) human effects data base is polluted by incorrect information, that the human health effects of (dioxin) may be far worse than originally believed, and that the polluted data has led the agency to 'go soft' on (dioxin)** Zn its report, Greenpeace said the EPA's Office of Criminal Enforcement had begun preliminary inquiries into possible manipulation of three key dioxin studies sponsored by Monsanto* Asked about the Greenpeace report, an EPA official who asked not to be identified saidi "There is an investigation under way*" The official declined to elaborate on the specifics of the investigation* Glynn Young, a spokesman for Monsanto, said the company had not been notified of any EPA investigation and that it stood by the studies as sound and unbiased. At the same time, he said Monsanto had asked the BPA to review the studies again in light of the allegations* Young said the allegations against the studies arose from litigation against Monsanto in which Greenpeace was an active participant* He characterised the Greenpeace report as a "rehash" of Issues raised in court* The Monsanto studies have been cited by some scientists in challenging federal policies that generally categorise dioxin as a highly toxic agent to humans* Those critics say while laboratory animal studies suggest high toxicity, harmful effects have not been verified in exposed humans. Dioxin is a by-product in the manufacture of certain pesticides and herbicides, most notably Agent Orange, the defoliant widely used during the Vietnam War* It also is generated in incineration and the bleaching of wood pulp for white paper products. The three Monsanto studies at issue examined health effects among workers at the company's herbicide plant in Nitro, W.Va*, who were exposed to dioxin during routine operations from 1955 to 1977 as well as in a .1949 industrial accident that released larger 1 noants of the contaminant* The studies, published from 1980 to 1983, are important because they represent one of the most comprehensive assessments of dioxin's health impact on humans. The Monsanto studies found no conclusive evidence of serious health effects - such as cancer or liver damage - due to dioxin exposure, a s with other studies, the Monsanto reports suggest the only consistent ailment among exposed workers was chloracne, a severe form of skin lesions. Among other allegations, the Greenpeace report suggested the Monsanto studies were manipulated in that! Disease rates among dioxin-exposed workers were compared with illness in a "control" group of workers who supposedly were hot exposed, but actually were. As a result, the report said, differences in disease rates between the two groups were muted. - Dioxin-exposed workers were arbitrarily placed into differ ent groups that were studied separately. The groups were so small in number that it became virtually impossible to detect statisti cally significant increases in disease among exposed workers compared to the unexposed. - Some cases of cancer and heart disease among dloxin-expoied workers inexplicably were excluded from some studies. Greenpeace said its report, entitled "Science for Sale," was based on independent analysis of the Monsanto studies, internal Monsanto memos and the sworn testimony of Monsanto employees and consultants. SPA officials said that, as with other chemicals, the agency largely developed its dioxin policies on the basis of laboratory animal studies in which relatively low doses of dioxin caused cancer, birth defects and liver, kidney and nerve damage. Those health effects have not been observed in studies of Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange nor in forestry workers with long-term occupational exposure to dioxin-contaminated herbicides The EPA has acknowledged the uncertainty about dioxin's impact on human health, but the agency has decided to err on the side of caution and has pushed the paper industry and others to reduce dioxin contamination. ##* !2 Charles Laesewski, "EPA to probe alleged problems with Monsanto dioxin studies; Greenpeace says reports falsified," in "The Journal of Commerce," Pacific Edition, November 30, 1990, pp. 7A. EPA to probe alleged problems with Monsanto dioxin studies; Greenpeace says reports falsified ^ The US* Environmental Protection Agency confirmed Wednesday it was investigating whether Monsanto Corp. manipulated and falsified studies of workers exposed to dioxin to make the chemical appear less harmful to humans. The environmental group Greenpeace, in a report, claimed that three studies done by the company in the early 1980s, and relied upon by the EPA, falsely concluded there was no apparent link between dioxin and the deaths of employees at the company's Hitro, W.V., herbicide plant. . Dan Bishop, director of Monsanto corporate communications in St* Louis, said he was unaware of that investigation, but his company asked the EPA In October to do an audit of the studies. "I'm delighted to hear it and welcome it," he said of the EPA investigation. "I think that is the only way we can put it to rest. I wish they had started yesterday. We deeply resent these accusations* We stand on the record with those three studies." But Greenpeace's Joe Thornton, who wrote the report on dioxin, was just as adamant about the Monsanto studies and another one done by the giant German chamical company BASF. Both studied employees who either worked routinely with dioxin-contaminated products or were exposed to it through accidents* "These are politically motivated and untrue," Mr. Thornton said of the dioxin studies. Gwen Brown, an EPA spokeswoman, said the agency had not seen the Greenpeace report and would not be able to comment. She confirmed there was an investigation under way by the agency's office of criminal investigation into Monsanto's handling or the studies The problem is that industries have used the studies to claim that no deaths have occurred because of dioxin exposure, Mr. Thornton said. Also, the studies have been used to convince EPA not to aggressively ban dioxin from the environment, he said. The SPA has from time to time said it was going to downgrade the health risk of dioxin, although it has never followed through because of objections from its science advisory board. The result has been constant uncertainty on just how dangerous dioxin, which is now present in most humans, might be to health. a' Earlier this year, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency backed off from a stringent dioxin standard for state rivers and lakes that would have required major changes by paper mills in particular. The agency staff was convinced by testimony produced by Boise Cascade that there was lot of uncertainty about dioxin and the EPA might be re-evaluating its toxicity. But, Hr. Thornton said, Greenpeace's evidence of false studies, combined wtih numerous other studies that Indicate dioxin may cause heart disease, lymphatic cancers and neurological effects, verifies the animal studies that for years have shown dioxin to be one of the most toxic chemicals known. Even minute amounts have caused cancer in lab animals. Greenpeace was expected to deliver a petition Thursday to the EPA in Washington demanding that the agency stop relying on the Monsanto studies, revise all policy decisions based on it and establish a national dioxin program to eliminate all major 1 sources of dioxins, Mr. Thornton said* That would require \ < phasing out the use of chlorine in pulp and paper mills, prohibit [sic] chlorine in any form in incinerators and eventually eleminatlng all uses of pure chlorine in Industry, he said. i Mr. Thornton said the Monsanto studies included people who were not routinely exposed to dioxin, which diluted the results. Testimony by the researchers in a Missouri court against Monsanto verified many of the study's problems, he said. ####i it i Yannacone & Yannacone Pott Office Drawer 109 Fatchogue, NY 11772 December 4, 1990 ATTORNEYS Victor J. Yannacone (Dec'd) Victor John Yannacone, jr. Hon, Jack B. Weinstein United States District Court Eastern District of Hew York 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201 Dear Judge Weinstein: Enclosed is a nemo from an EPA chemist concerning Monsanto's deliberate falsification of information supplied to the government on dioxin. The information on which the memo is based raises serious questions about some of the comments that have been made in the pa$t challenging the validity of the claims that some of the illness, disease, disability, and death among the Viet Nam combat veterans can be associated with their exposure to Dioxin contaminated herbicides 'in Viet Nam. Particularly troubling is the information that there was deliberate falsification or misrepresentation of data concerning the manufacture of 2,4-D, the "other" component of Agent Orange. In addition, the information on the dioxin contamination of pentachlorophenol, its chemical antecedents and process intermediates vindicates my early concern expressed in the response to the first motions to dismiss the Agent Orange complaints in July 1979. Unfortunately, the members of the Plaintiff's Management Committee lacked sufficient background in chemical engineering and industrial chemical processes to adequately pursue this line of inquiry during examination of the chemical company witnesses in the later stages of the litigation. It appears that the several insurance carriers involved in the "Agent Orange" settlement utilized my original apportionment formula developed in 1979 which established the contribution each company made to the overall amount of 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin to which the troops were exposed in Southeast Asia. By my reckoning, the contributions should have been approximately 30% from Dow and Hercules, and 60% from Monsanto and Diamond Shamrock. Since it is no longer any secret that settlement negotiations were conducted with Dow representatives in February of 1983, I can tell you that at the time of those settlement negotiations, the nominal demand on'behalf of the estimated 25,000 members of the class that we felt were capable of establishing causal relation and substantial special damages was $2.5 billion. Allowing a substantial discount factor for Workers1Compensation Products liab ility Soda] Security D isability Y A N N A C O N E & Y A N N A C O N E .Attorneys and Counselors at Law. .settlement and a realistic assessment of the probabilities of success on appeal, we were negotiating with Dow for a settlement in the range of $100 to $150 million. Included within that.settlement figure was to be some contribution from Hercules. Although Peter Shuck's book inaccurately reports the substance of these settlement negotiations, it should be reasonably clear that the greed and lack of claims sense manifested by my former colleagues of the Long Island consortium made it impossible to effect a settlement at that time. Nevertheless, it was widely.understood that-the case against Dow and Hercules would eventually be settled, /perhaps on the eve of trial, because Dow and Hercules made relatively uncontaminated 2,4,5-T while Monsanto and Diamond Shamrock not only produced highly contaminated 2,4,5-T, but could be shown to have behaved with bad. faith towards the government. v At the time of those negotiations, I was confident that the Viet Nam veterans and their families had a substantial chance of establishing their claim for punitive damages against either or both Monsanto and Diamond Shamrock. I intended to conduct the depositions of both these companies with a view towards establishing their actual knowledge of dioxin contamination of the products they sold and their malevolence in concealing this knowledge first from the Department of Defense and then from other government agencies charged with protecting the public health. Of critical Importance to the ultimate claims of the veterans for benefits under Title 38 was negating the conclusions of the Suskind studies conducted for Monsanto. To that end, I had already established the basis for challenging those studies, but the Plaintiff's Management Committee declined to pursue this line of inquiry. As you can see from the circulation list, this whistle blower .at EPA has apparently become frustrated with the system and widely distributed this document* I have already received a number of calls from veterans and veterans groups demanding to know why we cannot reopen the case against Monsanto and set aside the settlement at least as to that Company. If the allegations contained in the EPA memorandum are correct, and I have reasonable assurance that they are, then the bad faith manifest by Monsanto should deny them the protection of the settlement negotiated on the eve of trial in 1984. Monsanto should be asked to make a substantial additional contribution to the settlement fund at this time, as should Diamond Shamrock since the fraud perpetrated by Diamond Shamrock is at least as serious and substantial as that of Monsanto. Recognizing the ease with which Chapter 11 is raised as a means of # % YANNACONE & YANNACONE A tto rn e y s a n d C o u n s e lo rs a t L a w . resolving significant liability issues raised by major corporations facing significant liability for toxic torts, I believe that the Agent Orange settlement you fashioned must hold because it represents the only successful way of resolving a mass toxic tort claim as complex as the "Agent Orange" litigation. However, I do not believe that Monsanto and Diamond Shamrock should be allowed to profit from their wrongdoing. My original estimate was that the combined liability Monsanto and Diamond Shamrock should be approximately $300 million based on the $150 million I felt was properly chargeable to Dow and Hercules. I certainly believe that Monsanto has adequate resources to contribute additional funds to the Agent Orange settlement trust provided such contributions are made as originally suggested in my first Agent Orange class action complaint -- from the current earnings of the company together with whatever additional insurance may be available. \ As you know, the primary goal of the Viet Nam veterans and their families who brought the "Agent Orange" litigation to this Court as'\ a class action was, as it still is, to obtain the benefits to which they are entitled under Title 38. The assistance available to the veterans in obtaining Title 38 benefits from the VA at the present time is not adequate to meet their needs either in terms of processing the volume of claims or handling the complex medical issues involved. There is only so much that I can do for the veterans on a pro bono basis. The additional funds that could be obtained from Monsanto and eventually Diamond Shamrock could assure the veterans their ultimate right to benefits under Title 38 and do much to complete the healing process that you began when you negotiated the original settlement of the Agent Orange case. Thank you again for your consideration and concern for the Viet Nam combat veterans and their families. Very truly yours, YANNACONE & YANNACONE Victor John Yannacone, jr. VJYjr:jp enc. "Tim*-, High Dioxin Levels Linked to Cancel? i t By WARREN E. LEARY Special ip 'P it Ne* Yort Time* A workplace lion. The average American has at- blood level of 7 parts per trillion. " study finds WASHINGTON, Jan. 23 - A new Federal study suggests that the toxic Another group of workers, those who handled dioxin for less than a year, had chemical dioxin causes cancer in peo excess deaths.inple exposed at high levels, but may not blood levels of 640 parts per trillion, or 190 times the level of the general public, pose a substantial risk of cancer at high exposures.lower levels. Marr' Vieuum War veterans are jbut the study found their cancer death :rate 20 years later to be almost idem- * . cal to that of the general public. This in- particularly concerned about dioxin be 'dicates that the gieatest cancer risk ' cause it vas a contaminant of Agent Orange, a plant-killing chemical widely used by the United Slates military dur ing the war. Soldiers who handled Agent Orange or were accidentally sprayed with it In the field are concerned that the expo sures are the cause of cancers and other health problems subsequently found in Vietnam veterans, and they have been lobbying the Government for more compensation for injuries they attribute to the chemical. The latest study found that industrial workers exposed to much higher levels of dioxin than Vietnam veterans had an increased death rate from cancer, but death from several types of cancers previously linked with the chemical was not significantly increased. Dioxin has been a major health con cern because studies show it may be the most powerful cancer-causing agent ever tested in laboratory ro dents. Dioxin was not a commercial product, but rather, a manufacturing contaminant that found its way into other chemicals, including insecticides. Results Termed Equivocal In an editorial accompanying the study, Dr. John C. Bailar 3d af McGill University in Montreal praised the study as well designed and probably the best that could be done. But he said the results, like other studies, are equivocal and likely to be used by peo ple on both sides of the dioxin debate. " It is conceivable, although by no means certain, that we shall in time !from dioxin resides mostly with th*> highest exposures, Dr Fingernut said. Veterans' Figures Compared , / Relating these figures to Vietnam* veterans, Government surveys have i found that members of the armed forces who handled Agent Orange regularly had mean peak blood levels of about 400 parts per trillion at the time, and that ground troops who were sprayed with the chemical had blood 1leyels of up to 45 parts per trillion. Dr. Fingerhut declined to relate the ' results of her study to veterans, but . said people could use the data to make their own evaluations. Dr. Jeanne Stellman, an associate professor of clinical public health at Columbia University, who also is a con sultant to the American Legjon, was The Largest Workplace Study converge on a middle position in which skeptical about attributing any mean-' The study did find significantly in creased mortality from soft-tissue can cers and respiratory cancers in a sub group of workers that was most ex posed to the substance. A report on the study of 5,172 male workers at 12 plants that produced chemicals contaminated with dioxin is being published in Thursday's issue of The New England Journal of Medicine. It was the largest workplace study dioxin is accepted as a human carcino ing to blood test results because no one* gen. but one that does not have the ex knows how present readings relate to treme potency observed in rodents," he actual exposure. wrote. "There is much more We need to Dr. Fingerhut said the Government know before we can extrapolate these; researchers measured the blood levels results back to veterans," she said. of 253 workers for dioxin, which has a "But there is enough here, from a long residual life in the body, and found policy point of view, to give veterans that those who were exposed to the : the benefit of the doubt and attribute chemical the longest had peak blood some of these cancers to dioxin expo levels of 3,600 parts of dioxin per tril sure." ever done involving dioxin. It included an examination of the death certificates of 1,052 of the work ers in the study, and found a small but significant increase in mortality from all cancers combined. Most of the in creased cancer mortality was at tributed to a group of 1,520 workers who had the highest exposure to dioxin and had worked in the industry for more than 20 years. Workers in the high-exposure group, who were exposed to 500 times more dioxin than the general public, had a cancer death rate almost 50 percent higher than normal, including greatly increased mortality from a type of can cer called soft-tissue sarcoma and from cancers of the lung and respira tory system. . Risk From High Exposure Dr. Marilyn A. Fingerhut, an epi demiologist who directed the study, said in a telephone interview that the data strongly suggested that dioxin was a human carcinogen at high-expo sure levels. But she said a study of this type, in volving only 5,172 subjects: would not be statistically strong enough to spot 1certain relatively rare cancers Death | from several cancers previously as1sociated with dioxin exposure, includ ing stomach, liver and nasal cancers and Hodgkin's disease, was not signifi cantly higher than normal in the study, the report said. Although the study did not confirm findings of previous studies that a num ber of cancers were associated with dioxin exposure, the researchers said the excess deaths from cancer that it did pick up was probably caused by dioxin. But it is still possible that other factors, like smoking, may have con tributed to the excess cancer, they said. ______________________________________________ T hursday, J anuary 24, 1991 A 3 ___ t _ Extensive Study Finds Reduced Dioxin Danger By Malcolm Gladwell Wuhffifton Pom Stiff Writer Dioxin--the chemical that has come to symbolize the dangers of industrial pollution--appears to be less dangerous than previously thought, according to one of the most comprehensive epidemiologic al studies of the contaminant ever conducted. Using the health records of 5,000 chemical industry workers exposed to the chemical over the past 40 ' years, government scientists were able to find a "slight" excess cancer risk only among workers with dioxin levels absorbed by their tis sues some 500 times higher than normal. The results suggest that public concern over the levels of dioxin typically found in the environment may be largely unfounded. It also appears to bolster the growing view of many scientists that U.S. policy , toward the chemical, a common byproduct of industrial processes notorious for its presence in the defoliant Agent Orange, are far too strict and that millions of dollars are being wasted in its unnecessary regulation. "This is very reassuring," said George Carlo, chairman of the Health and Environmental Sciences Group and one of the nation's lead ing dioxin experts. "Here we have the group of people who have been exposed to higher levels of dioxin than perhaps anyone in the world, followed for a longer period of time than any other study, and it is not bearing out the cancer risk hypoth esis. If we were going to see some thing we would see it here in spades. And we haven't." The question of dioxin's safety has been a subject of debate among scientists and environmentalists since tests of the chemical on rats and mice in the 1970s showed it to be, for them, a potent carcinogen. Since that time, however, two ' developments have led many scien* tists to revise their earlier opinion of dioxin. The first is an analysis ! and reinterpretation of the original 1 1 animal tests, which showed that the conclusions drawn from the data ` may have been overstated. The sec1 ond is that repeated studies of peo ple exposed to unusually high levels of dioxin have not confirmed the picture of the chemical painted by the animal tests. For example, even after years of monitoring, no appreciable dioxinlinked health effects have been found in Vietnam veterans who came in contact with dioxin con tained in the defoliant Agent Or ange used in that war. The study of chemical industry workers, conducted by scientists at the National Institute for Occupa tional Safety and Health and pub lished in today's issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, ap pears to confirm this view. After examining medical records of the 5,000 chemical factory work ers, the scientists concluded that only those exposed to massive amounts of dioxin suffered any ill effects, and those effects formed only a modest indictment against the chemical. For example, the average expo sure of workers to didxin was 2.7 years, but the average time they spent working in chemical plants was 12.6 years. This raises the pos sibility, the researchers said, that dioxin may have been only one erf many potentially harmfiil sul> stances that the workers had come into contact with during their ca reers. The "study could not com pletely exclude the possible contri bution of other occupational carcin ogens or smoking . . . ," they said. This possibility, some experts said, was also suggested by the puz zling pattern in cancers observed among the workers. No increases in liver cancer were found in the group, despite the fact that the liver is the organ known from animal tests to be the primary target of dioxin. What the study did find was an excess in lung cancer, which had not previously been suspected to be a tumor caused by dioxin. The re searchers said that it is conceivable that the lung tumors were caused by the exposure of some workers to asbestos or smoking. Despite the study's qualifications, however, many dioxin experts wel comed it as providing the first de finitive evidence that risk from the chemical is linked to the amount of exposure. The study found increased cancer risk only among the about 1,500 workers who had what are esti mated to be the highest exposure levels in history--500 times the norm. No increased risk, by con trast, was found among the other 3,500 workers even though they had, on average, dioxin levels 90 times higher than normal.  ' * )cc 6-12. 1990 METROLAND AlthoughEPA's criminal investigation of Monsanto has been going on for several -DIOXINS 0 weeks. Thornton said Greenpeace Is not as concerned about punishing the company as OMISSIO LAST THURSDAY, international environmental group Greenpeace released the most extensive report to date on fraudulent dioxin health- i is about eliminating dioxin pollution. "The EPA is discoing around." he said. "What we want is not a new risk assessment on dioxin we want a prevention program^ --Mike G oudreau effects studies conducted by two of the world's largest chemical companies, Monsanto and BASF. Greenpeace also called on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to revoke any past dioxin decisions based onjhe information provided by the two companies. " It's a pattern of manipulation," said Greenpeace Research Analyst Joe Thornton. "The harm done by Monsanto's dioxin pollution in incalculable." From 1980 to 1984, Monsanto and BASF conducted health studies on workers exposed to dioxin during accidents and the routine production of herbicides at plants m West Virginia and LdwigsKven, West Germany. The Greenpeace report outlines how the two companies shifted dozens of workers with cancer and heartdisease to unexposed control groups or excluded thejn from the studies altogether. When the workers are returned to their normal control groups, the Greenpeace report said, the data clearly indicates greater levels of disease among dioxin-exposed workers. (Monsanto also has neglected toreport* dioxin contamination of Lvyl. the widely used disinfectant that it produces.? "Various scientists and EPA whistleblowers. have raised concerns about the Monsanto studies since 1985. Monsanto's misconduct officially became public last year, when a West Virgini^rommunity won $16 million in punitive damages from the chemical- PESTICID E CONTROL: If the New York Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides and more than a dozen publicinterest groups get their wish, pesticide users and dealers in the state will be regulated more heavily by the Department of Environmental Conservation without additional coat to the government. In a letter expected to be sent to DEC Commissioner Thomas Jorling and Gov. Mario M. Cuomo today (Thursday), the groups are calling for a 1 percent "green tax" on gross pesticide sales in New York state. The stati has not Increased fees for the registering of pesticide products for sale since 1978, and attempts at new legislation have failed for the last five > years. The resulting small revenues have allowed DEC to perform only about 1,000 inspections i year when the state has more than 30,000 licensed applicators and tens of thousands more commercial applicators who need not be licensed. Some 13,000 pesticide products are refpstered for sale in New York."Tracy PracFi. coordinator of NYCAP, called the green tax "a fresh approach," adding that DEC had "high-level discussions" on the tax during the summer. producer. Rut the EPA has apparently been left in the dust, (ft " EPA has been asleep at the wheel." said Thornton. "This perception [created by the studies] that humans are somehow immune o dioxin has stopped the agency from phasing it out. It's almost like they have a pro-dioxin policy." The EPA presently regards information onnecting dioxin exposure with cancer and heart disease as "inconclusive." EPA spokeswoman Gwen Brown said last week hat the agency's dioxin policies were not nfluenced by the Monsanto studies, but ite lenkins, a chemist in the EPA's Regulatory Development Branch and ah EPA whistleblower, disagreed. " Monsanto has in fact submitted false nformation to EPA, which directly esulted in weakened regulations .. / '.kins wrote in a memo to the .Pa 's Office ofCriminal Investigations-, vhich is probing the Monsanto studies. "In fidition. Monsanto's failure to report 'ioxin contamination of_thedisinfec^aiiLiD vsoi has prevented anv ban brother Icvia'tion of hum^njexpsures t gioxips ip METROLAND welcomes typed, double-spaced letters, addressed to the editor. METROLAND reserves the right to edit them for length; 250 words is the preferred maximum. Letters must include name, address and day and evening telephone numbers. We will not publish letters that cannot be verified nor those that are illegible, irresponsible or factually inaccurate. Write: L e tte rs METROLAND PO Box 6370 A lbany, NY 1 2 2 0 6 National Adnertiamf Representtire Cana C om m unication Inc.. 18S3 C entral S t . Evanaton. IL 6 0 2 0 1 (706) ` 4 7 5 -6 6 0 0 . CotryriffcI 1990 by Mr trolaod M agazine Inc. I AH rifb ta ra a e rred. METROLAND published 52 time a year by Metrotand Mafanne. Inc . 4 Cent-il Aremie. Albany. NY 12210 (SIS) 443-2500 Pnatmasler Send addreaa change to METROLAND. PO Bo* 370 Altnny. NY 1220 CIRCULATION 30 TOO PUBLISHED EVERY THURSDAY ESTABLISHED 1978 Distribution: METROLAND ta dtatributH free o<char* limited to one copy per reader. No peraon may. without poor written permiaaion o1METROLAND. take more than one ropy N K - M W clIND /5 A W t i u i d W lv j M i>ft(sTS V itc K il il? product." Inter n atIona1 Independent Rient Otante Eet*ork(Into) Joe Cole,OlynpIn.Va.(200)459-7189 Chr 1 Shawn,ETC.NYC.(212)686-8782 Ron Rossant.McLean,Va.(703)749-9585 EYS * R c n t O r a n g e V i c t i ms Ee t v o r l t ( I n f o ) O ronge TeH t Ion Committee s Andrew Vi ik i n s o n n i b . TM , Y ( 5 i 8 ) * 6 2 - 7 2 3 6 Frank C. * Shnron Cook .( 518)283-6681 J o h n J . B y r n e s , 111 ( 5 1 8 ) ^ 6 2 - 2 2 3 6 \