Al Gore's stolen spring

By Kenneth Smith Copyright 1999 Washington Times August 19, 1999

Three years ago Vice President Al Gore wrote the foreword to what he called a "critically important book" titled "Our Stolen Future." It was in some respects a sequel to Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring," he said, in that it too focused on the alleged health risks posed by man-made chemicals. And what a catalog of horrors it was.

"Although scientists are just beginning to explore the implications of emerging research," he wrote, "initial animal and human studies link these chemicals to myriad effects, including low sperm counts; infertility; genital deformities; hormonally triggered human cancers, such as those of the breast and prostate gland; neurological disorders in children, such as hyperactivity and deficits in attention; and developmental and reproductive problems in wildlife." Throw in a few locust swarms, and you have suffering of biblical proportions.

Mr. Gore was writing about a class of chemicals known as "endocrine disrupters" found in everything from pesticide residues to food to birth-control pills. Some are man-made. Many more occur naturally. Some researchers, such as the authors of "Stolen Future," theorize that exposure to them in minute quantities can throw off human and animal hormone systems, effectively creating a lot of undesirable competition for the Mutant Ninja Turtle market. The book itself is a 300-page shriek complete with titles like "Hand-Me-Down Poisons," "Hormone Havoc" and "Fifty Ways to Lose Your Fertility."

By using phrases like "beginning" and "emerging," Mr. Gore intended to leave a loophole big enough to ride a canoe through in case his warning turned out to be a false alarm. But earlier this month the loophole got smaller. In a report titled "Hormonally Active Agents in the Environment," a National Research Council panel went looking for evidence of the damage caused by trace exposures to these chemicals. They found exactly . . . nothing.

As scientists often do, members of the NRC, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, couched their findings in various degrees of uncertainty. Partly that's because while it is relatively easy to show that the worst hasn't happened, it's almost impossible to prove it can't happen.

Elizabeth Whelan, head of the American Council on Science and Health, says the word "safe" has become a four-letter word in the scientific community. Almost always, as is the case with this report, the recommendation is for ever more study of the issue.

Still the NRC report is notable for what it didn't find. An evaluation of the available data does not, for example, support an association between breast cancer and adult exposure to hormonally active agents (HAAs), the report said. Nor does the data link HAAs in the environment to other hormonally sensitive cancers such as testicular, prostate and endometrial cancer.

Genital deformities? Nope. The evidence to date suggests that increases in the incidence of male reproductive disorders in humans, such as testicles that have not descended to the scrotum and testicular cancer, cannot be linked to exposures to HAAs found in the environment.

Immune system problems? Negative so far. Data on the immunological effects of HAAs are inadequate to support any definitive conclusions about problems in humans.

Well, what about ecological effects? The report suggested the chemicals may have caused deformities or population declines in animals. It is difficult, however, to determine a clear causal relationship between these changes and exposure to HAAs given all of the other environmental factors involved, the report said.

So the world will continue to turn a little longer. Scientists will collect more money to conduct more studies. And the authors of the book Mr. Gore endorsed will continue to sound the alarm. "This is a growing field," author Theo Colborn told the New York Times after the report was released. "Just because we don't have the evidence does not mean there are no effects." Just because there is no evidence?

Ms. Colborn is living proof of the axiom that it is impossible to prove a negative.

The calamity industry may be good business for some, but it imposes costs on the same persons it purports to protect, some of it self-serving.

The authors recommend that, for example, readers give their grocers a copy of the book to encourage them to reduce pesticide exposures on produce. The books aren't free, although one may be able to pick remainder copies cheaply by now.

There are also costs in terms of time, energy and just plain fear. Don't use plastic wrap to prepare food lest sperm-stealing chemicals leach into the food. Be careful about breast-feeding babies because the milk may be contaminated. And so on.

Meanwhile, a Tulane researcher cited frequently and favorably in the book has had to withdraw a much-publicized study substantiating the authors' worst fears. And another scientist looking into whether a sinister mix of chemicals had produced a batch of three-legged frogs discovered that the fault lay with nature; an ordinary parasite caused the deformities.

In view of the NRC panel's findings, perhaps Mr. Gore should worry less about a silent spring than one lost to unwarranted and exaggerated fears. That too is a man-made risk.

Kenneth Smith is deputy editor of The Washington Times editorial page.

Comments on this posting?
Click here to post a public comment on the Trash Talk Bulletin Board.
Click here to send a private comment to the Junkman.