In the following section we take up each of Professor Scranton’s charges in turn:
Integrity and Accuracy:
Professor Scranton charges that we “failed to satisfy … professional standards” of “integrity and accuracy.” In a twenty page section he says that we tend towards “overgeneralization and an inattention to corroboration,” “failure to follow up research,” “incomplete use of sources,” and “inadequate understanding of science.” He seeks to document these claims by providing partial or inaccurate summaries of our work and mis-statements about the content of documents. The two chapters of our book that Scranton addresses center on the activities of MCA, the trade association for the chemical industry, in the years between 1964 and 1974 and particularly 1970 and 1974. It was then that the industry discovered that the primary building block of polyvinyl chloride, one of the mainstays of the plastics industry, caused cancer in animals. At issue was the level of vinyl chloride monomer (measured in parts per million – ppm) that workers or customers could be safely exposed to without endangering their health. In brief, we trace how the European and American plastics industries worked together to keep from the government data based on animal experiments that vinyl chloride monomer could cause cancer.
Perhaps Scranton’s most egregious misrepresentation is of this point. He alleges that we claim the industry’s “most salient element of ‘deceit’” was not telling the government about the European’s “finding tumors at a fairly low point on a scale of exposure...."(Scranton, p. 30-31) Scranton seeks to reduce our argument to whether or not the industry representatives “mention cancers at 250 ppm” at the industry meeting with NIOSH in July, 1974 (Scranton, p.29). At Markowitz’ deposition, Scranton argues, Markowitz makes an “admission” that it is unclear whether NIOSH “was told about the existence of tumors at 250 parts per million,” Scranton argues that the “most salient element of ‘deceit’ … has thus dissolved.” (p.30) But, Scranton misses the point. The “deceit” was not about “finding tumors at a fairly low point on a scale of exposure,” the fact that Markowitz twice agrees is unclear from the documentation. Rather, it was the fact that the industry avoided informing the government about new research of Cesare Maltoni, another investigator for the European plastics manufacturers. This research indicated that vinyl chloride could produce angiosarcoma of the liver in rats at low levels of exposure. The MCA planned before the meeting to avoid letting NIOSH know that Maltoni had found angiosarcoma of the liver in rats at levels of exposure below what American companies were recommending as a safe level for humans. Our point, simply put, is that the industry planned this deception of a government agency so that the government would not take “precipitous action,” such as regulation of working conditions or even possibly a ban on the use of vinyl in consumer products. The industry’s decision to deceive the government is documented in the writings of industry representatives themselves and can be read by all in the selection of documents posted at the website noted earlier. These are not our assertions, as Scranton would have the reader believe, but industry’s own statements. While it is possible (or not) that the MCA told the government about animal cancers at 250 ppm, this is irrelevant since this information was at best interpreted by the government as confirming earlier work that had found tumors in the rats’ zymbal gland, an organ that humans do not have. The industry went into the meeting knowing that it was not going to tell the government about the new critical information that Maltoni had discovered, unless asked – an impossibility given that NIOSH did not know of Maltoni’s experiment. The MCA’s lawyer:
“briefed the task group on their responsibilities and obligations under the confidentiality agreements now operative between MCA and the sponsors of the present project on the one hand, and the European group on the other. In brief, his admonishments were to the effect that absent permission from the European group, we should not volunteer reference to the European project or substantive data derived therefrom, but that, in response to direct inquiry, we could not deny awareness of the project and knowledge concerning certain preliminary results.” [12]
The industry spokespeople came away from the meeting pleased that they had avoided the issue and therefore had avoided the possibility of government regulation of their industry.
Previous Page | Page 9 | Next Page