=======================Electronic Edition========================.                                                               ..           RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #486           ..                        March 21, 1996                         ..                          HEADLINES:                           ..                   OUR STOLEN FUTURE--PART 1                   ..                          ==========                           ..               Environmental Research Foundation               ..              P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD  21403              ..      Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: [email protected]       ..                          ==========                           ..  Back issues available by E-mail; to get instructions, send   ..   E-mail to [email protected] with the single word HELP   ..    in the message; back issues also available via ftp from    ..      ftp.std.com/periodicals/rachel, from gopher.std.com      ..            and from http://www.monitor.net/rachel/            .. Subscribe: send E-mail to [email protected] ..  with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message.  It's free.   .=================================================================OUR STOLEN FUTURE--PART 1The NEW YORK TIMES this week declared war on the theory andevidence that synthetic chemicals, such as dioxin, interfere withhormones, causing harm in wildlife and humans--a story we havebeen following since 1991.[1]  Under a banner headline inTuesday's Science Times section,[2] TIMES writer Gina Kolatareviewed the new book by Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski, and JohnPeterson ("Pete") Myers, OUR STOLEN FUTURE.  OUR STOLEN FUTURE isbased on a review of literally thousands of scientific studiesgoing back 60 years.[3]  The main idea in the book is thatsynthetic (human-created) chemicals may be interfering with thehormones that control and regulate growth, health and behavior inwildlife and humans, leading to birth defects, problems of sexualdevelopment, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and even mentalproblems like attention deficit disorder, reduced IQ, and violentbehavior. Both Colborn and Myers hold Ph.D. degrees in zoologyand are fully-qualified scientists, yet Ms. Kolata's reviewbegins this way:"In a warning supported by allies who include Robert Redford andVice President Al Gore, some environmentalists are asserting thathumans and wildlife are facing a new and serious threat fromsynthetic chemicals."Thus in her opening paragraph, Ms. Kolata managed to trivializethe issue and discredit the authors by giving the impression that(a) "some environmentalists" are the source of the data; (b)perhaps some other environmentalists don't buy it; (c) the book'smain supporters are politicians and movie actors; (d) scientistsaren't in the picture.Not until the fourth paragraph do we learn that Theo Colborn isherself a scientist, but by that time we've already been toldthat the message of OUR STOLEN FUTURE is "controversial," andthat "the factual basis of the book's alarms... have been refutedby careful studies," and that co-author Pete Myers heads "anenvironmental group" (which is Ms. Kolata's description of the W.Alton Jones Foundation in Charlottesville, Va.).  Ms. Kolatanever does get around to telling her readers that Dr. Myers is afully-credentialed scientist.  Nor does she describe or name asingle "careful study" that refutes any of the premises of OURSTOLEN FUTURE.Ms. Kolata's review plunges downhill from there.  It is not untilthe sixth paragraph that we learn, "besides Mr. Gore's support,OUR STOLEN FUTURE has been endorsed by several biologists andtoxicologists, who say the book deserves to be heeded."  Eventhen Ms. Kolata never names or quotes a single biologist ortoxicologist who supports OUR STOLEN FUTURE.  Instead, shedevotes long paragraphs to four scientists who, she says, arecritical of the theory that synthetic chemicals can disrupthormones and thus cause harm to wildlife and humans.However, even in quoting these contrarian scientists, Ms. Kolatadeceives and misleads her readers by selectively distorting theirviews.For example, she quotes Dr. Michael Gallo of Rutgers Universitysaying that OUR STOLEN FUTURE is "hypothesis masked as fact." Yeton May 15, 1990, the NEW YORK TIMES itself quoted Dr. Gallo toquite different effect.[4]  Here is the context: The writer ofthat 1990 story (TIMES staffer Jon R. Luoma) said, "Research nowappears to have established that [dioxins] can affect animals andhumans by mimicking steroid hormones, which are themselvesextremely potent chemicals."Luoma concluded, in that 1990 TIMES story, that the symptoms ofdioxin exposure "range from suppression of the immune system tostriking disruptions in cell growth and differentiation,particularly in fetal development."  This is precisely themessage of OUR STOLEN FUTURE.Then Luoma quoted Dr. Michael Gallo, Rutgers University, sayingTCDD [dioxin] "is as potent as any hormone" and "it doesn't takemuch hormone, or dioxin, to have a tremendous effect."  And Dr.Gallo said, "From a toxicological point of view, nothing we'velearned has caused us to back away from the idea that these[dioxins] are very, very potent chemicals."  Does Gina Kolata notread the NEW YORK TIMES?In her zeal to undermine the credibility of OUR STOLEN FUTURE,Ms. Kolata then quotes Dr. Stephen Safe, of Texas A&M Universitypooh-poohing Colborn and Myers's evidence that syntheticchemicals interfere with hormones in humans.But back in May, 1990, the TIMES quoted Stephen Safe to quitedifferent effect.  Here is the context:Jon Luoma's May 15, 1990, TIMES story pointed out that animalstudies have shown that dioxin has a "breathtaking toxicity" andin laboratory animals dioxin causes a broad spectrum of toxicresponses.  "With laboratory animals, it seemed as if dioxincaused just about any effect you can think of," Steven Safe, aprofessor of toxicology at Texas A&M University, said.  "You nameit and [dioxin] did it, and at extraordinarily low doses," hesaid.  "New research has not reversed these findings, it hasmerely helped explain them," Dr. Safe said. Luoma then went on topoint out that, "...[S]tudies of humans exposed accidentally toTCDD [dioxin] have shown unusually high levels of enzymes thatare typically induced by steroid hormones, a strong clue that ahormone-like response is triggered in humans exposed to dioxin aswell."  This is precisely what OUR STOLEN FUTURE is about, exceptthat now dioxin is not the only known culprit: 50 additionalsynthetic chemicals have been shown to have the power to disrupthormones.  Does Gina Kolata not read the NEW YORK TIMES?In her zeal to discredit OUR STOLEN FUTURE, Ms. Kolata sets upTheo Colborn, then knocks her down by quoting another scientistwho apparently dismisses Colborn's argument that syntheticchemicals mimic hormones and affect the brain.  Watch how thisplays out to discredit Colborn:Ms. Kolata writes: "Asked for the strongest, most convincingevidence that endocrine disruptors are affecting humans, Dr.Colborn said it was studies indicating that these chemicals arecausing hyperactivity in children. 'The evidence is just buildingup,' she said, citing animal studies."She added that she also worried that endocrine-disruptingchemicals were causing a decline in intelligence and said thatanimal studies showed that such chemicals could weaken short-termmemory in rodents."'If you have problems with short-term memory, you have problemswith intelligence,' she said. 'Remember, the thyroid fits inhere,' she said. 'There are thyroid problems in practically everyfish in the Great Lakes. And thyroidologists say that it takesjust the slightest shift during critical times in the developmentof the brain and you will have behavioral problems andintelligence problems.'"But Dr. Maria I. New, chief of pediatric endocrinology at NewYork Hospital-Cornell University Medical Center in New York, saidthere was no evidence that learning disabilities, violence or adrop in I.Q. had anything to do with prenatal exposure toestrogens or endocrine-disrupting chemicals."NO EVIDENCE, says Dr. Maria I. New.  Sounds like an open and shutcase, doesn't it?  Colborn must be wrong: there must be noevidence that these hormones can affect the brain.But wait.  Back on May 3, 1994, TIMES writer Natalie Angierquoted the same Dr. Maria I. New saying that she was conductingresearch to determine whether the amount of androgen (male sexhormone) in a female fetus affected a woman's neurological[nervous system] development. "There are definitely effects ofandrogens on the brain," Dr. New said.[5]  Does Gina Kolata notread the NEW YORK TIMES?In her zeal to discredit OUR STOLEN FUTURE, Ms. Kolata goes toabsurd extremes.  She paraphrases Pete Myers saying "the evidencewas sufficient to press for at least a worldwide ban on DDT andfurther restrictions on PCBs" --DDT and PCBs being two of thebest-documented and most harmful hormone-disrupting chemicals.But Ms. Kolata won't let Dr. Myers hold even this modestposition.  She insists that "[S]everal leading scientists viewsuch position as premature at best."  Premature to advocate aglobal ban on DDT?  The U.S. banned DDT 25 years ago, in 1971.Premature to restrict PCBs?  The U.S. severely restricted the useof PCBs 20 years ago, in 1976.  Ms. Kolata writes that these"leading scientists" say that the case for ridding the world ofDDT and PCBs "seems fueled more by hyperbole than facts and thatmany of the claims of demonstrable harm, when examined, turn outto be a house of cards."Does Ms. Kolata not read the NEW YORK TIMES? Does she not evenread stories she herself has published previously in the TIMES?On August 2, 1988, Ms. Kolata reported in the TIMES that anindustrial accident in Taiwan in 1979 exposed a group of peopleto PCBs and those exposures "have caused an epidemic of birthdefects."[6]  Is it not simple common sense to advocaterestrictions on a chemical that can cause an epidemic of birthdefects in humans?Gina Kolata's review of OUR STOLEN FUTURE is unfair, biased,deceptive, and distorted, clearly aimed at discrediting all ofthe book's ideas, even its most unremarkable, mainstream ideas.It reminds me of the crude hatchet jobs done on Rachel Carson'sSILENT SPRING back in 1962. Ms. Kolata's review raises theobvious question, who in the chemical industry "got to" Ms.Kolata and how did they do it?But the more important question is, why did the editors at theTIMES assign such a lightweight to review such an important book?OUR STOLEN FUTURE is a major work with a profoundly importantmessage.  Anyone who reads the NEW YORK TIMES knows that theissues raised in this book have been described and discussed atserious scientific meetings, and in the columns of the TIMESitself, for some years now.[7]  To allow a bigoted reviewer tosuggest that these ideas have no basis in fact and have little orno support in the scientific community is a desecration of thejournalistic values that the TIMES is committed to upholding. Mr.Kolata's review is unfair, false, distorted, biased, andmisleading. Everyone ---I mean EVERYONE --should read this book,and everyone should give a copy to their family doctor.  OURSTOLEN FUTURE is well written and easily understood.  It deservesa fair reading --which Gina Kolata did not have the intellectualor moral capacity to give it.  The TIMES can do better.  Muchbetter.                                                --Peter Montague===============[1] See REHW #263, #264, #322, #323, #343, #364, #365, #372,#377, #432, #438, #446, #447, #448.[2] Gina Kolata, "Chemicals That Mimic Hormones Stir Alarm andDebate," NEW YORK TIMES March 19, 1995, pg. C1. And: Gina Kolata,"Sperm Counts: Some Experts See a Fall, Others See Poor Data,"NEW YORK TIMES March 19, 1995, pg. C1.[3] Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski, and John Peterson Myers, OURSTOLEN FUTURE (N.Y.: Dutton, 1996).[4] Jon R. Luoma, "Scientists Are Unlocking Secrets of Dioxin'sDevastating Power," NEW YORK TIMES May 15, 1990, pg. C4.[5] Natalie Angier, "Male Hormone Molds Women, Too, In Mind andBody," NEW YORK TIMES May 3, 1994, pgs. C1, C13.[6] Gina Kolata, "PCB Exposure Linked to Birth Defects inTaiwan," NEW YORK TIMES August 2, 1988, page unknown.[7] See, for example, items cited in footnotes 1 through 6; andsee Jon R. Luoma, "New Effect of Pollutants: Hormone Mayhem," NEWYORK TIMES March 24, 1992, pg. C1.Descriptor terms:  endocrine disrupters; dioxin; hormones;endocrine system; new york times; gina kolata; theo colborn;dianne dumanoski; john peterson myers; book reviews; journalism;journalistic ethics;################################################################                             NOTICEEnvironmental Research Foundation provides this electronicversion of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of chargeeven though it costs our organization considerable time and moneyto produce it. We would like to continue to provide this servicefree. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution(anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please sendyour tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental ResearchFoundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please donot send credit card information via E-mail. For furtherinformation about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F.by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL.                                        --Peter Montague, Editor################################################################