letter in Science from Ozonoff et al

[twebster@bu.edu (Tom Webster)]

    SCIENCE 269:1204 (1995), September 1, has a letter from several SAB
panel members challenging Richard Stone's misleading news article (26
May,p.1124) on the meeting of the panel last spring where the dioxin
reassessment was reviewed. Text as is follows:


    We take strong exception to Richard Stone's summary of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) meeting
and the accompanying headline, ("Panel slams EPA's dioxin analysis," 26
May, p.1124), as members of the panel in question.  At the conclusion of
the meeting, one of us (D.O.) characterized the panel's recommendations as
"in no way a repudiation," but rather a judgment that two of the nine
chapters (parts of chapter eight and chapter nine) of the health assessment
document needed "clarification and ripening." No one of the 39-member panel
disagreed publicly with that judgment, and there were several concurrences
on the record.
    As noted by Stone, we did commend the agency for considering dioxins
and related compounds as a class, and many of us were highly supportivce of
the work reflected in the first seven chapters of the health assessment
document.  In particular, we do not agree with Stone's assertion that
"Other board members say EPA also ignored data that fail to support its
conclusions that dioxin is harmful to human health." The only board member
Stone cites in this context is Michael Gough, a microbial geneticist at the
Office of Technology Assessment of the U.S. Congress, and we disagree with
him and think he is not representative of the full group. Moreover, his
long-held views on this subject are well known.
    Finally, we point out that the one public comment on the agenda in the
2-day meeting from an organization not representing industry also commended
the EPA for its work to data. We think it is likely that when the EPA
redrafts the health assessment document for the molecule TCDD, it will
maitain the scientific core of the evidence it assembled in its most recent
draft. If so, it will be a major step forward in providing the basis for a
scientifically based policy to protect public health.

    Richard Clapp, David Ozonoff
    Department of Environmental Health
    Boston University School of Public Health
    Boston, MA 02118, USA

    Alan Silverstone, Department of Microbiology and Immunology
    State University of New York Health Science Center
    Syracuse, NY 13210, USA

    Bernard Weiss, Department of Environmental Medicine,
    School of Medicine, University of Rochester
    Rochester, NY 14642, USA




Tom Webster                                    tel:(617)638-4641
Boston University School of Public Health      fax:(617)638-4857
Department of Public Health, Talbot 3C
80 East Concord St., Boston, MA 02130 USA