|
Latest Update on the Dioxin Reassessment!
Click here for the most recent developments.
History:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) completed its first health assessment of dioxin in 1985. The EPA’s estimate in this report of the cancer risk to humans from dioxin exposure was by far the highest defined for any chemical by any government agency anywhere in the world. Because this report provided the scientific basis for all risk assessments used by EPA programs to regulate dioxin emissions and discharges to the environment, the regulated industries immediately protested that this risk estimate was too high.
The paper and chlorine industries in particular pressured the agency to reconsider this risk estimate. The focus of their argument was on the method used by the agency to estimate the cancer risk. These industries argued that there was a "threshold" of exposure to dioxin, below which there was no risk, and that dioxin was much less dangerous than defined by the EPA. The EPA argued that there was no threshold and that its risk estimate was supported by scientific evidence.
As part of its efforts to convince the EPA of its position, the Chlorine Institute (later to become the Chlorine Chemistry Council) in 1990 convened a scientific conference on dioxin. Shortly afterwards, in 1991, EPA Administrator William Reilly announced that the agency would undertake a reassessment of the health effects of dioxin based on findings from this conference. The industries felt confident that the agency would now find that there was a level of exposure to dioxin that does not pose any risks, forcing the agency to recalculate its cancer-risk estimate.
Instead, scientists found new evidence that there was no threshold for some of dioxin's effects and that dioxin acted like a hormone, disrupting many systems in the body. These and related findings supported the agency's original risk estimates and provided the scientific basis for the EPA's draft reassessment report, which was released in 1994. In this report, the EPA again concluded that dioxin poses a serious cancer risk and that the average American had a level of dioxin in their body that could cause adverse health effects (USEPA, 1994).
This draft prompted dioxin-generating companies to launch an aggressive campaign to stall the release of the report. This attack began with a peer review report led by industry scientists who rejected several chapters in the draft document, forcing the agency to rewrite them and delaying the process of finalizing the report (SAB, 1995). While this draft report was being rewritten, local and state agencies hesitated to take action on dioxin exposure situations, claiming that there was no clear guidance on the risks dioxin posed. This led to a six-year delay during which people continued to be exposed to dioxin while government reevaluated its risk estimates and corporations operated as usual.
In June, 2000, the EPA released a revision of the 1994 reassessment report. Much to the chemical industry’s dismay, the EPA found even stronger links between exposure to dioxin and adverse impacts on human health. One of the EPA’s key findings was that the risk of getting cancer from dioxin exposure was ten times higher than reported in 1994. The agency also acknowledged that the importance of the non cancer effects of dioxin including effects on hormones and the immune system, developmental/reproductive effects, and developmental neurotoxicity.
The EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed the EPA's dioxin reassessment report in the fall and winter of 2000-01. This review was to be one of the last steps in the review process before the EPA released the final document. The review process was controlled by industry and used to further stall the release of the reassessment. Members of the SAB were presumed to be neutral scientific experts whose role it was to review the report solely on its scientific merits. The SAB review process turned out to be littered with controversy. Complaints included the lack of balance on the panel, lack of public disclosure among the reviewers about conflicts of interest, and the lack of transparency throughout the process.
In June, 2001, after much watch dogging and pressure from Campaign partners, the SAB sent a letter to EPA Administrator Christine Whitman urging the reassessment be completed and released ‘expeditiously.’ Instead, the agency announced they would send the final draft to an Interagency Working Group (IWG) for one more review. The IWG consists of representatives from all the federal agencies who not only got to comment on the report, but also to develop a release strategy. It wasn’t until January of 2003 – eighteen months later - that the EPA actually sent the document to the IWG.
The process and timeline for completion are unclear, despite numerous attempts to get this information from the EPA. In 2003, during the eleventh hour of negotiations, a rider was added to the House Appropriations Bill that requires the dioxin reassessment be reviewed in it’s entirety by the National Academies (NA) if the IWG process isn’t completed within sixty days of the passing of the Appropriations Bill. The IWG did not complete its review by the required time. Thus, NA conducted a review.
Most Recent Developments:
The National Academies (NA) released a report on July 11, 2006 confirming what numerous scientific panels have concluded over the past 15 years: dioxin is a potent cancer-causing chemical. Chlorine-based industries have been effectively stalling the release of the EPA’s controversial dioxin reassessment for 15 years.
Lois Gibbs, CHEJ Executive Director, said "Enough is enough—EPA should establish health protective regulations around dioxin discharges and clean ups now." CHEJ and 50 groups across the country did media releases to highlight the need to take action on many local dioxin hazards.
(read the full national news release)
(read the NA study)
Dioxin contamination is particularly high in areas with dioxin sources like incinerators, smelters, pulp and paper mills, chemical factories or other industries that use chlorine. The disposal of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic is the largest source of dioxin-forming chlorine in solid waste. PVC is the leading contributor of chlorine to four combustion sources— municipal solid waste incinerators, backyard burn barrels, medical waste incinerators and secondary copper smelters—that account for an estimated 80% of dioxin air emissions.
Get Involved in the PVC Consumer Campaign!
Help Us Get the Poison Plastic Off Store Shelves!
CHEJ has launched a PVC consumer campaigns to encourage major corporations to phase out their use of PVC and to support policies that phase out PVC. We have already convinced Microsoft, Johnson & Johnson, Victoria’s Secret, and Bath and Body Works to phase out their use of PVC in their packaging! We want to leverage these victories to build momentum for further commitments to safer products in the year to come. We would like you to be part of this successful effort by being part of the campaign.
To get involved, e-mail CHEJ's PVC Campaign Coordinator, Mike Schade, at mike@besafenet.com or give him a call at 212-964-3680.
Government and Other Reports
GAO Report on EPA's SAB
The United States General Accounting Office's (GAO) Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committe on Government Reform, House of Representatives, Report GAO-01-536, June 2001
EPA's Science Advisory Board Panels
Improved Policies and Procedures Needed to Ensure Independence and Balance
Report Abstract
This report reviews the policies and procedures of the Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board to ensure that
- its peer review panelists are independent and the panels are properly balanced and
- the public is sufficiently informed about the points of view represented on the panels.
GAO found that the policies and procedures used by the staff office to ensure the independence of the Board's peer reviewers and the balancing of viewpoints have limitations that reduce their effectiveness. The staff office has not systematically requested certain information that is pertinent to assessing the independence and overall balance of viewpoints represented on the panel--such as previous public positions the panelists have taken on the matter being reviewed--until the first meeting, when the panelists have already been selected. Furthermore, conflicts of interest may not be identified and mitigated in a timely manner.
GAO also found that the staff office's policies and procedures for providing the public with information on the backgrounds of the Board's peer review panelists do not adequately inform the public about the points of view represented on the panels.
To read the full report log onto
www.gao.gov and search for GAO Report GAO-01-536, in the Report Search Box.
GAO Report on EPA's Dioxin Reassessment's Environmental Health Risks
The newest report the Government Accountability Office released a
report last Friday (April 26)
Environmental Health Risks: Information on EPA’s Draft Reassessment
of Dioxins
(pdf).
The GAO's report's an important document in terms of the process
for completing the Dioxin Reassessment.
The report was commissioned by Senators’ Thad Cochran (R-MS) and
John Breaux (D-LA) in 2001. They were concerned about the potential impact
the EPA’s “Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin
(TCDD) and Related Compounds,” (also known as the Dioxin Reassessment)
would have on the food and agriculture industries as well as consumers.
They asked the GAO to look at three areas:
1) the data EPA used to estimate human dietary exposure to
dioxins in the US;
2) how the reassessment objectives, processes, analytical
methods, and conclusions on the health risks of dioxin compare with the
World Health Organization; and
3) the extent the draft reassessment reflects the views of
the independent peer review panels that reviewed it in 2000/2001.
The significance of the report is that it endorses the work that
EPA has done thus far and gives a green light for the long awaited Dioxin
Reassessment to be completed and released.
Both the chemical and food industry have been trying to delay the
release of the reassessment and one of their tactics is to call for more
research and a second is to challenge the way the EPA derived at their
conclusions.
The GAO report also indicates that while there are some limitations
with the data concerning the concentrations of dioxin in the food supply,
the methods used by the EPA are internationally accepted scientific methods
for risk assessments of dioxin.
All of this indicates to us that there is no need for further delay
in completing and releasing the Dioxin Reassessment to the American public.
Please join the BE
SAFE Campaign by emailing Anne Rabe, CHEJ'S BE SAFE Coordinator at annerabe@msn.com or call 518-732-4538. |
