Writing about environmental toxicology—the ambient chemical exposure of our daily lives—has it all: public health threats, a nascent body of science, tight-lipped officials, industrial interests, and consumer unawareness.
Yesterday, at Columbia University, two news outlets were rewarded for doing it right.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, for the second time in its history, took home the 2008 John B. Oakes Award for environmental reporting. Its winning series, “Chemical Fallout,” exposed the fact that, despite millions of taxpayer dollars spent by the government, the Environmental Protection Agency has failed to screen thousands of potentially dangerous chemicals found in a variety of common household and consumer products (the paper also won in 2005 for a series on invasive species in the Great Lakes). The Associated Press received an honorable mention for a similar investigation, “PharmaWater,” which detailed the presence of low doses of pharmaceuticals in the drinking water of 41 million Americans.
At an afternoon panel, the three-member team behind each series spoke about challenges they had encountered, and the many hours spent analyzing scientific data, surveying public records and officials, and speaking with chemical manufacturers.
“You have to check everything seven ways from Sunday,” said investigative health reporter Meg Kissinger, part of the Journal Sentinel’s team, which also included science reporter Susanne Rust and business reporter Cary Spivak. In its series, which began in late 2007, the group has exposed the EPA’s systemic failure to screen over 15,000 chemicals despite mandates and pledges to do so. It has documented a pro-industry bias at the agency, which favors studies that minimize the risks of endocrine disruptors like bisphenol-A, commonly found in plastic products, which causes a host of birth defects, cancers, and other damages in lab animals.
The Journal Sentinel’s team has reviewed more than 250 scientific studies and thousands of pages of regulatory documents and industry correspondence, and interviewed more than one hundred scientists, physicians, and industry and government officials. In the process, they had to contend with heavily redacted (and costly) federal documents and chemical representatives that either misrepresented themselves or the nature of certain studies.
“The industry spends a lot of money throwing people off the trail,” Kissinger said. “This is old-fashioned, gumshoe political and business reporting combined with Susanne’s ability to review the scientific literature. This kind of thing is very unusual today.”
Indeed, both the Journal Sentinel and the AP reporters encountered many people who were surprised that information exposure to everyday chemicals is not more readily available. The AP’s investigative team, which includes Jeff Donn, Martha Mendoza, and Justin Pritchard, interviewed over 230 officials, academics, and scientists, and surveyed sixty-two of major water providers covering fifty of the country’s largest cities. Less than half of those providers had tested for pharmaceuticals (which is not federal government does not require). Low doses of a variety of drugs—including antibiotics, anti-consultants, mood stabilizers, and sex hormones—were detected in twenty-four major metropolitan areas’ drinking water. Public officials insist the water is safe, but getting details can difficult.
“I’ll tell you, getting some cities to disclose what’s in their water – I mean this a test that the people drinking the water paid for – and they will not disclose what they find in it,” Mendoza said. “New York City was one of the hardest. Some places told us that they couldn’t tell us if they’d tested their water because of terrorism and 9/11.”
Even once the AP reporters knew who had tested and what had been found, evaluating and explaining the public health risk was a daunting exercise. Data was mostly limited to animal studies. Furthermore, most research has focused on high, acute doses of pharmaceuticals. Much less is known about low, chronic doses, but scientists are beginning to realize they, too, can be dangerous. Now, they’re starting to challenge the old idea that “the dose makes the poison.”
This is great; I'm glad there are papers supporting this sort of work by science journalists, which truly serves the public. I'll never forget the weeks in 2001 when I was allowed to hole up in the library, digging into scientific studies for my stories about a water fluoridation controversy in Flagstaff, Arizona. In that case, my efforts revealed that fluoridation fears were overblown based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature, a fact which -- when I revealed it in the Arizona Daily Sun -- did not make me popular with some readers! Still, I remain grateful that the paper (a small daily) saw fit to let me do my homework, rather than churn out the he said/she said party lines. Good for these reporters who dug in, and good for their papers who allowed them the time and freedom to do it.
#1 Posted by Anne Minard, CJR on Sun 8 Mar 2009 at 01:51 PM
Some day the fluoridation story will also win an investigative award too. But I believe, complications arise because the corporations who profit from selling fluoridated products and who subsidize organized dentistry (who promote fluoride use) are the same corporations media depends upon for advertising, such as Proctor & Gamble, etc.
If P&G is miffed at a newspaper story about one of their products, they have been known to pull out all of their product advertising which would be suicide for some outlets.
So here we are with the internet getting our information directly to the people who have to take action in their own hometowns.
We applaud Anne Minard for taking on this unpopular story, fluoridation, and her newspaper for having the courage to tell the truth. Someday she'll be on 60 minutes.
The belief is so deep that fluoridation is a safe and effective method to reduce tooth decay, that officials themselves aren't fact-checking their own information.
Case in point, the American Public Health Association re-stated its support of water fluoridation, citing many studies that prove fluoridation is safe and effective. However, a cursory look at those studies shows that many of them don't even address the safety and efficacy of fluoridation and, in fact, show that fluoridation is NOT safe for everyone.
See our news release at:
http://tinyurl.com/APHAdeception
#2 Posted by nyscof, CJR on Tue 10 Mar 2009 at 12:39 PM
For Anne Minard's edification and others interested, I list here 2 government reports and an entire journal's report;
1. Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine (F), 1993, US Dept. Health & Human Services/ATSDR. This book notes the problems with some of the studies that have been touted by dentists. See pages 112; Subsets of the population unusually susceptable to toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds are the elderly, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems. Page 125: Neurotoxicity. Because fluorides interact with calcium ions needed for effective neurotransmission, fluoride can affect the nervous system.
2. Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride, NAS report for Congress, 1993. see pages 11, 16, 34, 44-45, 128, and 129.
3. Journal of Dental Research, Special Issue, Vol.69, Feb. 1990, Worldwide Symposium on Fluorides. Entire book is important, especially article by Drs. Pendrys and Stamm. And Poster No. 7, page 826-827 (notes combinations of caffeine and fluorides resulted in two-fold increase in blood plasma)
#3 Posted by Anita, CJR on Sun 15 Mar 2009 at 12:35 AM