Letter on Agent Orange was 'insensitive' and 'divisive'

Letter to the editor by Anne Sweeney and Deborah Del Junco
Copyright 2000 Washington Times
May 5, 2000

Response by Steven Milloy in bold

Credible scientific debate can advance our understanding of complex scientific questions. However, the letter by Steven Milloy and Michael Gough regarding the placement of a plaque honoring Vietnam veterans who died as a result of diseases linked with Agent Orange exposure and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was insensitive and divisive ("Will a memorial to Chunky Monkey be next?" April 30). Note Sweeney and Del Junco did not say we were wrong -- just "insensitive and divisive". I guess the truth hurts.

We debated the merits of dismissing the letter summarily vs. seizing this opportunity to enlighten the Mr. Milloy and Mr. Gough regarding the importance of accurately researching the issue at hand and reporting their findings in an unbiased and scientific manner.

When scientists publish their research in peer-reviewed scientific journals, they usually are required to disclose funding sources and potential conflicts of interest so that the readers will be able to judge for themselves the scientific integrity of the work. We are independent researchers on the faculty of the University of Texas School of Public Health. We are funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institutes of Health to examine questions regarding health effects among Vietnam veterans from 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) exposure. Since when does EPA funding connote "independence"? I suppose this comment is an indirect challenge of our report measuring dioxin in Ben & Jerry's ice cream. Our work can be easily verified by anyone, especially "independent researchers" such as Sweeney and Del Junco. Even Ben & Jerry's did not challenge our report. The report was funded by sales from the Gough/Milloy book "Silencing Science."

One of us (Anne Sweeney) served on the EPA's 1993 Dioxin Peer Review Panel. As of this date, the EPA has not released the final TCDD assessment document, although Mr. Milloy and Mr. Gough claim the EPA's Scientific Advisory Board concluded that dioxin "caused no health effects except for a skin disease seen at very high levels of exposure." Michael Gough also served on the Science Advisory Board's Dioxin Peer Review Panel. Note that an SAB conclusion is not the same as the EPA conclusion. And the SAB did reject the EPA's report. That's why the EPA took its report back to the drawing board and now, more than four years later, is set to release a new draft to a new SAB panel. Sweeney and Del Junco are trying to confuse readers. In 1997, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified TCDD as a Group 1 human carcinogen. In addition, the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) Committee to Review the Health Effects of Herbicide Exposure in Vietnam Veterans has listed the following disease entities as having sufficient evidence of a significant association with TCDD exposure: soft-tissue sarcoma, non-Hodgkin's disease lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease and chloracne. Furthermore, the IOM found limited/suggestive evidence of a significant association with TCDD exposure for respiratory cancer (larynx, lung and trachea), prostate cancer, multiple myeloma, spina bifida among the offspring of veterans, acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy and porphyria cutanea tarda. The secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs determined that the weight of the evidence was sufficient to compensate Vietnam veterans for the above 10 conditions as service-connected effects. The reports referred to are well-known "junk science" orchestrations conducted by bureaucrats for political purposes. As we stated in our letter, if dioxin is so dangerous, why is no one concerned about the dioxin in Ben & Jerry's ice cream?

The reality is that the questions regarding health effects associated with TCDD exposure are extremely complex. The answers are simple, thanks to our Ben & Jerry's test. We know that many diseases result from gene-environment interactions, and we are beginning to examine genetic susceptibility to adverse effects from environmental agents as one explanation of apparently contradictory findings in earlier studies. Moreover, sample size and selection and crude exposure assessment have been major limitations in previous studies of the prevalence and degree of TCDD exposure, as well as health effects from that exposure, among Vietnam veterans. As science continues the often slow and painstaking progress toward an accurate assessment of these issues, let us not err on the side of flippancy and arrogance in considering the appropriateness of honoring those Vietnam veterans whose deaths occur after the war has ended but that nonetheless well may be service-connected. I'll take flippancy, arrogance -- and being right -- over junk science any day. Junk science does not honor anybody, least of all Vietnam veterans.

ANNE SWEENEY
Professor
University of Texas School of Public Health Houston

DEBORAH DEL JUNCO
Assistant professor
University of Texas School of Public Health
Houston