Document zQwryjQ6eDJLpBeNpXB8ML4K7

SUBJECT REFERENCE ; R. T. Berendt T. M. Bistline W. D. Carpenter W. J. McCarville P. S. Park G. Roush J. D. Wilson E2ND E2ND G3WG G3WG G3WB G2WG G3WG F.Y.I., w have responded to last Fridayfs Post-Dispatch editorial on dioxin. Our letter to the editor and the editorial are attached. cf attachments D. R. Bishop N SU ' ' }\ J ^ f0 KVTECnVE ordsT i1 V, C10155 Monsanto Monsanto Company 800 N. Lindbergh Boulevard St. Louis. Missouri 63185 Phone: (314) 694-1000 November 23, 1983 PU BLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT Letters to the Editor St. Louis Post Dispatch 900 N. Tucker Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63101 Dear Sir: We must take exception to some of the statements made in your lead editorial of November 18, "Dioxin And The Evidence." For example, Monsanto did not withhold information about "dioxin risks." As far back as 1949, long before dioxin was identified as a chemical structure, the company shared with the West Virginia State Health Department and the U.S. Public Health Service the health effects observed in our Nitro plant employees following accidental exposure to what was later identified as dioxin. Furthermore, Monsanto is not alone (as your editorial suggests) in "minimizing the dangers of dioxin." This position is shared by the American Medical Association, the British Advisory Committee on Pesticides, the U.S. Air Force, the Veterans1 Administration and a host of independent medical experts. Further, this, position is based on the preponderance of documented human evidence, accumulated to date. Monsanto agrees with your statement that "the effects... may not show up in humans until many years after their exposure." That's precisely why we attach so much significance to long-term health studies, one done on workers exposed for up to 30 years, which have found no evidence of any serious lasting health effect, other than a few cases of a skin condition called chloracne. Sincerely >P A Director, A\ /-/EnvivrAoinimmeTnitf aall Communications Cf C10156 il LOUIS POST-OISPATCH ' Founded by JOSEPH PULITZER December 12, 1878 THE POST-DISPATCH PLATFORM i * I KNOW THAT MY RETIREMENT WILL MAK5.NO DIFFERENCE IN ITS CARDINAL PRINCIPLES, THAT IT WILL ALWAYS FIGHT FOR PROGRESS AND REFORM, NEVER TOLERATE INJUSTICE OR COR RUPTION, ALWAYS FIGHT DEMAGOGUES OF ALL PARTIES, NEVER BELONG TO ANY PARTY. ALWAYS OPPOSE PRIVILEGED CLAS5ES AND PUBLIC PLUNDERERS,' NEVER LACK SYMPATHY WITH THE POOR. ALWAYS REMAIN DEVOTED TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE, NEVER BE SATIS FIED WITH MERELY PRINTING NEWS, ALWAYS BE DRASTICALLY INDEPEND ENT. NEVER BE AFRAID TO ATTACK WRONG. WHETHER BY PREDATORY PL#UTOCRACY OR PREDATORY POVERTY. . April 10.1907 JOSEPH PULITZER Friday, November 18,1983 editorials Dioxin And The Evidence The clear lesson that emerges from th e . 48-page special section on dioxin, published by the Post-Dispatch earlier this week, is that preventive action against chemical poisoning could avoid much human misery and be far less costly than action after the fact. The dioxin report suggests that, although warnings of danger were there, government and industry were moved only by tragedy and public alarm to take strong corrective action. In its comprehensive account of the dioxin contamination of Missouri, the special report reveals understandable errors of judgment on the part of government officials and private entrepreneurs; but it also reveals cases of government apathy and corporate deception. The federal government, for example,' ignored warning signs of dioxin contamination from Agent Orange, the defoliant sprayed by U.S. forces in Vietnam. Had the government acted in response to scientists' proposals for tests, the domestic hazards of dioxin poisoning might have been realized earlier. And, as the- special report notes, m anufacturer of herbicides containing dioxin -- including the Monsanto Co. of SL Louis and Dow Chemical Co. -- "placed competitive instincts ahead of publichealth concerns." They w ithheld information about dioxin risks and exposed people to dioxin In medical experiments. Monsanto tends to minimize the dangers of dioxin, its spokesman saying, among other things, that there "is no acceptable evidence that dioxin has caused any type of cancer in humans." There is evidence, however, that it causes cancer in laboratory animals and, although the evidence is not conclusive, some reputable scientists believe it causes cancer In humans and suspect It causes other disorders far more serious than chloracne, the problem on which the industry focuses. The difficulty is that the effects'of a carcinogen may not show up In humans until many years after their exposure. Therefore, ordinary prudence demands caution in the handling of a suspected carcinogen before conclusive evidence Is in. Otherwise the harm may be irreparable. The instruments for a cautious approach are provided in federal and state laws passed In the last decade in response to the evident growing menace of hazardous chemicals, including such federal laws as the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which is complemented In Missouri by a 1977 hazardous waste law. Still other laws are being considered, such as a bill now in Congress that would extend controls to small waste generators and require better methods of waste disposal. But even the wisest and most exacting laws will not do any good if they are not enforced. Frequently both federal and state laws offer only paper protection because required reports of conditions go unprocessed -- sometimes because of willful neglect but more often because federal and state agencies are understaffed. Industry often delays enforcement through extended court challenges. The Post-Dispatch special section reported that estimates of the dioxin cleanup cost in Missouri range up to a billion dollars. The obvious message is that strengthened agency staffs followed by stringent law enforcem ent' could avert astronomical cleanup costs and avoid future hazardous waste disasters such as the dioxin problem now plaguing Missouri. \ SUBJECT TO ClOl57