Document wqOgGqmBEOxaq563RgpXqoNbB

-WES - EHNGEH : ATTACHMENT E iVlonsanio '.`em ino Camunv -00 N unooann Bauwvva Lou*.Mtnoune3lfi7 - - o r * - U 141 6944873 March 9, 19 90 Raymond C. Loehr, Rh.D. Chair, Executive Committee Science Advisory Board Iffice of the Administrator 1'nited States Environmental Protection Agency Wasnmgton, D.c. 104 60 Re: Monsanto Company and Epidemiology Studies Concerning Dioxin Dear Dr. loehr: Monsanto has learned or the EPA's receipt of highly inflammatory and inaccurate.information pertaining to epidemiology studies '`nvolving Monsanto's Nitro, West Virginia plant. The materials jrvarded to your office are contained within a legal brief submitted by the plaintiffs1 attorney in the appeal of a lawsuit filed against Monsanto and includes allegations that published study data and results were falsified by the University of Cincinnati's Kettering Institute and by Monsanto in a purported effort to mislead the scientific world and public regarding the toxic effects of dioxin. These accusations were first issued years ago by the same lawyer in the same lawsuit and are utterly untrue and contrary to the record in that case. Considering the genesis of these accusations it is recommended that they be examined critically, especially in light of the EPA's previous experience with this source during the Kemner trial at which several government witnesses (including Dr. Kloepfer of E M and Dr. Kimbrough of CDC) testified. The Kemner trial at which these charges arose involved the claim that Sturgeon, Missouri was unsafe due to dioxin contamination and that its residents (plaintiffs in the suit) had been injured by the teaspoon of TCDD contained in the 19,000 gallons of orthochlorophenol crude spilled during a 1979 train derailment. These health claims were contrary to the conclusions reached by the EPA, the Center for Disease Control and the jury. Given the strident nature of the inaccurate and misleading representations contained in the materials in circulation within the Agency, M'^santo believes it is important that the record should be kept s light on the subject. iU1U1(yVj -O-1i J combined comparison of the tvo studies. This fatal statistical omission in the "re-analysis*1 by plaintiffs1 counsel was not disclosed at trial until Monsanto vas able to offer the clarification testimony of its Medical Director, Dr. George Roush, and called the Kettering Institute's Director, Dr. Raymond Susbind, to testify regarding his worb. Counsel for plaintiffs never called Drs. Zac* or Gaffey as witnesses regarding their study. If the plaintiffs' lawyer had included the 23 non-cancer deaths selectively omitted in his "re-analysis", a death rate of IS cancer deaths out of 90 total deaths would have resulted and no excess cancer death rate would exist. (See the enclosed diagram depicting selective omission in plaintiffs* counsels "re analysis" and the actual result.) Contrary to the untrue accusations contained in the plaintiffs* appellate brief, it is clear that Dr. Roush did not suggest that any of the mortality studies at the Nitro plant were fraudulent or scientifically inaccurate. Enclosed with this correspondence is a copy of a pertinent portion of Dr. Roush*s testimony establishing the points outlined above. Similarly, Dr. Susbind testified at the trial regarding the accuracy of the studies and that there was absolutely no effort to "conceal" evidence of health effects. A written offer of proof, signed by Dr. Susbind, is enclosed with this correspondence and directly rebuts the accusations contained in the plaintiffs' brief. Examination of Dr. Susbind's written offer of proof by any cientist familiar with the literature regarding dioxin would mabe it apparent that there was a constant and broad effort by the plaintiffs' lawyer to mischaractarize results of peerreviewed scientific studies published by a wide variety of authors, including Dr. Kimbrough. Of particular importance is the portion of the offer of proof commencing at page 22 which provides the bacbground and the data pertinent to rebut the accusation that the case showed that Dr. Susbind was "alleged to have falsely stated that wobbars* nervous system and liver problems had disappeared by 1953". At trial, Dr. Susbind testified that the A K A 's conclusions that certain dioxin-related health effects cleared with time was based upon his experience in examining cartaigtelfitro plant employees in 1949 and then following their |jg>a.th over multi-year period. The of far of proof commsncing|pfcrpaga 22 explains the accuracy of Dr. Susbind's puSCicationa on that point. The patently false accusation by plaintiffs' counsel that Dr. Susbind sought to conceal another physician's findings of psychoneurosis in exposed workers from the West Virginia Worbmen's compensation Commission is also covered in the written testimony of Dr. Susbind commencing at page 50. Repeatedly at the trial Dr. Susb ind testified that the Commission bnav and was told of specific facts regarding the finding of "psychoneurosis" by another physician but that the Commission rejected the suggestion that it vas * lated to the 1949 autoclave incident. The court record 3 uouu r established than Dr. Suskind had appeared before the Workmen's Compensation Commission 20 years earlier and had personal knowledge of these facts. In short, the accusations by the plaintiffs' brief, which have been transmitted within the EPA, are untrue, contrary to history and the record at trial. Any critical reviewer of the plaintiffs' legal brief should conclude that the allegations of fraud are not credible. Indeed, the allegation that the University of Cincinnati falsified health studies regarding the mortality of Nitro workers is belied by the fact that the conclusion it reached in its peer-reviewed morbidity study on that population--that no long-term health effects other than chloracne appeared to be present-- was shared by another totally independent study conducted at the same time on the same employee population by Dr. Irving Selikoff of Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, who was employed by the union to conduct that study. It is hoped that the EPA will correct any misapprehension within the Agency caused by the receipt of the plaintiffs' appellate brief. Please, advise if you have any questions or require any further information. We are very disturbed by the false charges being made against Monsanto and Dr. Suskind and will, of course, fully cooperate with you in setting the record straight. Sincerely James H. Sanger y ^ Vice President J Environmental Policy Staff JS/dlr - ' CC: Donald G. Barnes, PhD. Director, Science Advisory Board Office of the Administrator U.S. E.P.A. Hugh McXinnon, Ph.D . Director, Human Health Assessment Group Office of Research and Development U.S. E.P.A.