Orange. Used heavily as a def~liant during the Vietnam War, twenty years later much of the five million acres sprayed remains barren. The incidence of miscarriage and birth defects in those areas is markedly higher than in the rest of the popttlation. United States servicemen exposed to the defoliant are experiencing a variety of disorders, including a high percentage of cancers and birth defects in their offspring. During the War, objection to the use of Agent Orange by the scientific community was discredited as "emotionalism" or "essentially political statements against the War." Today, similar objections can be heard. "We're sick and tired of innuendoes and hysteria about the use of pesticides," says Stan Timmerman, representative of the Oregon Wheat Growers' League. "People are crying wolf without any scientific facts and this is.grating on us farmers who use the stuff safely every day." From a political perspective, Jack Early, representative for the National Agricultural Chemicals Association, fe.els that the EPA, which registers and regulates chemical use in the United States, has taken an "adversary role," placing "too much emphasis on risk." Herbicide opponents, on the other hand, feel that the EPA has been much,too lax. Who's Poisoning America (see access this i_ssue) rel-ates Dr. Melvin Rueber's experience with the EPA. Considered one of the leading pathologists in the country, Dr. Rueber was a former . employee of the·EPA responsible for reviewing safety data on 23 registered pesticides, 'induding 2,4-D. Finding the quality of the submitted reports poor, he did further research on his own and became convinced that most of the pesticides, including 2,4-D, were carcinogens. The officials to whom he reported his findings did -nothing with his report; the 23 pesticides are still registered and available for use. He resigned in protest. A commonly heard complaint of herbicide proponents concerns the use of anecdotal evidence refo-ting the safety of herbicides. Individuals experiencing negative effects are often discredited and their health problems attributed to their lifestyle, other factors or coincidence. In their defense it should be noted that a single testing for herbicide contamination can tun between 30 and 2,000 dollars depending upon detection limits, chemicals tested and what the sample is-all of which must be independently financed. While anecdotal evidence does not provide a firm enough footing to remove a chemical from the marketplace, the sheer volume of circumstantial evidence seems to indicate some connection between exposure and various health problems: •In 1978, a 12-year-old girl from Allegheny, Oregon developed a rare blood disease associated with industrial toxins after the area arom:1d her nom·e was sprayed.with herbicides. The herbicide was later found.in her blood as well as the family's tap water. Someone in each of the five families that share the same Water source have developed c;ancer. • Ov.er a two-year period ending in 1978 when the USFS was spraying 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D in Orleans, California, less than half of There are three major sources of research data on chemicals-independent laboratories, university labs, and those owned by industry. A shift from public to private support of u,niversity research, the highest since 1920, has raised concern about the growing ties between industry and universities. Industry provides sorely needed financial support to flagging university budgets, while university research provides l~gitimization and indirect state support of industrial research and development. While the subject of objectivity is open to debate, it certainly seems that university-based research may be influenced by this increasing interdependence. Subtle interpretations can also have a substantial impact on scientific findings. Research conducted by Dow scientists drew conclusions that directly contradicted those made by independent scientists using the same data. Dow researchers refused to conclude that 2,4,5-T leads to birth defects because of a technical interpretation of the term teratogenic (birth-defect forming). Serious birth defects are defined by Dow (Science, April '71 "Dow Redefines Word it -,_ .. November 1981 RAIN Page 15 the babies born were normal and healthy. •A survey in Saskatchewan published by the National Research Council of Canada in 1'978 revealed that 20 percent of the 3,000 farmers interviewed claimed they became ill with headaches, rashes, and nausea after routine applications of herbicides. Numerous scientific studies support this evidence as well. Despite this, many scientists, foresters and corporate executives _still insist on the safety of herbicides . The obvious question is why are there such vast differences in scienti£ic findings? Legal loopholes, falsified evidence, and growing ties between industry and research universities (see box) have caused scientific evidence ~o be justly questioned. Continued use of the controversial herbicides have raised the question of who should bear the burden of proof. Should herbicides be considered guilty until proven inno- , cent or innocent until proven guilty? Cost/benefit calculations by user groups, including the EPA, have concluded that herbicide use is a "reasonable risk." Mounting grass roots opposition has been most vocal on health issues, but increasingly sophisticated arguments have begun to challenge economic rationales as well. "We called them up 'cause we thought they made some horrible mistake . .. and they said 'oh no, it only kills plants."' Public protest in the 60's to increased harvests in the national forests gave rise to the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act in 1972. This legislation requires that public lands be preserved for multiple use-recreation, wildlife, watershed and timber-and that the allowable timber cut not exceed what can be harvested "in perpetuity." If it can be shown that forest growth in the future can be increas~d, harvests today can be increased without violating this principle: This is called the Allowable Cut Effect (ACE) . The technical problem with this approach is that the calculations are all estimates. If growth predictions are wrong we could be heading toward a timber shortage. This is exactly what some critics feel is happening. Herbicides have become an integral part of ACE predictions, enabling foresters to claim an "earned harvest factor" in their harDoesn't Like") only as those that interfere with the ability of the offspring to survive. Congenital malformations such as cleft palates, mental retardation, or six-fingered hands are not serious birth defects by this definition. Lastly, private research facilities, such as the Industrial Biotest Laboratories (IBT), have also been found lacking. In 1977 'the FDA -discovered fraud in health effects test data submitted by IBT. A review of over 200 chemicals found a majority of the tests invalid. None of the chemicals under review have been re-registered though most have remained on the market. What is more, EPA documents uncovered by NCAP News (the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides) noted deficiencies in over 25 labs while the destruction of records, reports and other documents by another 22 make it imposs~ble to determine the accuracy of those laboratories' ' work. The investigation covered both independent and industryowned labs. " "n
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz