Uncategorized

CDC Officials Blocked Public Health Report

The Center for Public Integrity, a public interest investigative journalism organization, has obtained copies of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study of environmental and health data in eight Great Lakes states that was scheduled for publication in July 2007. The report, which pointed to elevated rates of lung, colon, and breast cancer; low birth weight; and infant mortality in several of the geographical areas of concern has not yet been made public.

A few days before the report was slated to be released, it was pulled. Meanwhile, at precisely the same time, its lead author, Christopher De Rosa, has been removed from the position he held since 1992.  The Center for Public Integrity is asking why.

The study, “Public Health Implications of Hazardous Substances in Twenty-Six U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern” was developed by the CDC’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) at the request of the International Joint Commission, an independent U.S-Canadian organization that monitors and advises both governments on the use and quality of boundary waters.

The CDC report brings together two sets of data: environmental data on known “areas of concern” — including superfund sites and hazardous waste dumps — and separate health data collected by county or, in some cases, smaller geographical regions.

The study does not try to prove cause and effect. Instead, it outlines areas for further study and data collection on the link between pollution and health.

“Let’s say we have a superfund site and we also find elevated risk of leukemia in the county — is that related? We don’t know, but people living in the area can logically argue that we ought to find out,” Dr. Peter Orris, a professor at the University of Illinois School of Public Health and one of the peer reviewers of the study told Oneworld.net.

Since 2004, dozens of experts have reviewed various drafts of the study, including senior scientists at the CDC, Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies, as well as scientists from universities and state governments, according to consumeraffairs.com. Orris is just one of the several experts who reviewed the study and who, along with the International Joint Committee in a December letter to the CDC, have called for the report’s publication.

Canadian biologist Michael Gilbertson, a second peer reviewer, told the Center for Public Integrity that he felt the findings were being suppressed because they were “inconvenient.”  On the record, he added: “The whole problem with all this kind of work is wrapped up in that word ‘injury.’ If you have injury, that implies liability. Liability, of course, implies damages, legal processes, and costs of remedial action. The governments, frankly, in both countries are so heavily aligned with, particularly, the chemical industry, that the word amongst the bureaucracies is that they really do not want any evidence of effect or injury to be allowed out there.”

Orris also raised concerns that the publication may have been halted based on orders outside the CDC.  Once again, it seems that the Bush administration is trying to shrink government by making sure that a federal agency doesn’t do its job—a problem that I wrote about here in a post titled “The FDA– What Happens When You Starve the Beast.” Corporate interests are protected–at the expense of the nation’s citizens.

“I have an overall concern with respect to the culture of this administration, which permeates all levels of the scientific wing of the government,” Orris said. “The administration has regularly cut funds so that they don’t find statistics that could be potentially politically embarrassing — for instance, the sampling of toxins in fish in the Great Lakes has been cut way back.”

“If the messenger doesn’t come with the message, no one knows it’s there,” he added.

CDC spokesperson Bernadette Burden told OneWorld that the report was held back because internal and external reviewers — including the Environmental Protection Agency and several state health departments — identified “numerous discrepancies and deficiencies” and determined a rigorous review was needed. She added that the CDC plans to release the report after the review is completed, in “weeks rather than months.”

Burden cited several examples of “discrepancies”, including the fact that the county-level health data “reflected people’s illnesses from 1988 to 1997, while much of the environmental data used in the report came from the EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory dated 2001 and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination system with 2004 data.”

As Oneworld.net points out, CDC did not clarify why these issues were not identified until July 2007 despite several years of review.

A new director of CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health and ATSDR, Howard Frumkin, was appointed in July 2007, shortly before the report was due to be released.  He replaced De Rosa, who had served as director of the Division of Toxicology for fifteen years. De Rosa was named special assistant in Frumkin’s office — a position that appears to carry “no real responsibilities” according to a Feb. 2008 letter from members of the Congressional Committee on Science and Technologies to CDC director Julie Gerberding. The letter called the move an apparent retaliation.

As many as 9 million people — including residents of Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, and Milwaukee — may be at risk from exposure to pollutants including pesticides, dioxin, PCBs (Polychlorinated Biphenyls), and mercury, according to Sheila Kaplan, an investigative journalist who covered the story for the Center for Public Integrity.

Kaplan has read all three drafts of the study, from 2004 to 2007.

“It’s important for this work to be followed up on,” she told OneWorld. “What I hope from this report is that communities will say, ‘We deserve to know this information and whether exposure to these chemicals and metals is killing us.’ More work needs to be done.”

You will find Kaplan’s full report here.

Maggie Mahar is an award winning journalist and author. A frequent contributor to THCB, her work has appeared in the New York Times, Barron’s and Institutional Investor. She is the author of Money-Driven medicine: The Real Reason Why healthcare costs so much, an examination of the economic forces driving the healthcare system.

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

8
Leave a Reply

8 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
Sac Lancel pas cherShelleyGregory D. PawelskiMaggie MaharJohn Norris Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Sac Lancel pas cher
Guest

A Fréjus (Var) où le FN est arrivé nettement en tête dimanche, le candidat UMP Philippe Mougin est sur la ligne “ni, ni”. Il a déposé mardi sa liste pour le second tour des municipales et rejeté des alliances « politiciennes » avec une candidate socialiste et l’ex-maire DVD. Arrivé dimanche en 2e position avec 18,85% des votes, le candidat UMP n’est pas « partisan d’alliances contre nature entre les deux tours ». « Ces petites combines politiciennes sont une manière d’enclencher une machine à perdre. Je reste sur mes valeurs avec mon équipe », a-t-il commenté. Il a appelé l’ex-maire DVD Elie Brun (arrivé 3e… Read more »

Shelley
Guest

Hi Maggie,
For some innovative, cheap solutions for health care, check out my blog:
http://diybaby.blogspot.com/2008/02/fixing-health-care.html
Dr. Shelley

Gregory D. Pawelski
Guest
Gregory D. Pawelski

Chemicals in lakes and other waterways couldn’t possibly be causing health problems? Where do those chemicals come from? One of Papa Bush’s favorite private equity groups (Carlyle) bought-out Synagro Technologies, a company that processes municipal waste products, transports the resulting “sewer sludge” and distributes it for land application. Residents already living near these sites where sewer sludge has been applied have reported significant health complaints that are associated with the sludge application. The Carlyle Group levereaged buyout of Synagro (worth $772 million) will enable it to avoid requirements that Synagro provide to the public, shareholders, and federal agencies such as… Read more »

Maggie Mahar
Guest
Maggie Mahar

John–
I agree completely.

John Norris
Guest

So if I rather crudely overlay SEER Breast Cancer Maps available here: http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/map/seer/index.cfm
On top of an EPA emission Google Earth Layer available here:
http://www.epa.gov/mxplorer/All_Facilities.kmz
I might begin to get a sense of what is happening myself.
I understand that my crude layers do not replace better data and analysis. However, my point is two-fold:
1. The tools are becoming available for anyone to more easily do this sort of research.
2. We need to make sure that the data is not locked up as well.

maggie mahar
Guest

Peter and Rene– Peter–thanks for your comment. Rene- I also would be interested in why you are so certain that chemicals in lakes couldn’t be causing health problems. If you haven’t read Kaplan’s entire report, I would urge you to read it. Quite a few doctors and public health experts who have reviewed the report are quoted saying that it should be released so that reserarcher can follow up on cause and effect. You might also want to read a story that Sheila Kaplan (who wrote this report for the Center on Integrity) wrote about FEMA using trailers that contained… Read more »

Peter
Guest
Peter

“I am appalled by this story. Not by the CDC report itself or that it was not published. As the report itself noted, all of the links with health outcomes could be do(sic) to random chance.”
Which chemical company do you work for? Chemicals don’t kill people, people kill people.

rene
Guest
rene

I am appalled by this story. Not by the CDC report itself or that it was not published. As the report itself noted, all of the links with health outcomes could be do to random chance. Had Ms Maher read the report and been most interested in objective and factual reporting, that would have been the lead. This attempt at conspiracy theory and misuse of science to scare people is irresponsible, unprofessional and doesn’t help consumers. What is appalling is this article and the author’s apparent lack of understanding of cancer clusters, shot-gun/bullseye fallacies, science, toxicology, teratology, oncology and epidemiology.… Read more »