Government Suppresses Public Health Report

Posted on by

The Center for Public Integrity, a public interest investigative journalism organization, has obtained copies of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study of environmental and health data in eight Great Lakes states that was scheduled for publication in July 2007. The report, which pointed to elevated rates of lung, colon, and breast cancer; low birth weight; and infant mortality in several of the geographical areas of concern has not yet been made public.

A few days before the report was slated to be released, it was pulled. Meanwhile, at precisely the same time, its lead author, Christopher De Rosa, has been removed from the position he held since 1992.  The Center for Public Integrity is asking why.

The study, “Public Health Implications of Hazardous Substances in Twenty-Six U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern” was developed by the CDC’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) at the request of the International Joint Commission, an independent U.S-Canadian organization that monitors and advises both governments on the use and quality of boundary waters.

The CDC report brings together two sets of data: environmental data on known "areas of concern" — including superfund sites and hazardous waste dumps — and separate health data collected by county or, in some cases, smaller geographical regions.

The study does not try to prove cause and effect. Instead, it outlines areas for further study and data collection on the link between pollution and health.

"Let’s say we have a superfund site and we also find elevated risk of leukemia in the county — is that related? We don’t know, but people living in the area can logically argue that we ought to find out," Dr. Peter Orris, a professor at the University of Illinois School of Public Health and one of the peer reviewers of the study told Oneworld.net.

Since 2004, dozens of experts have reviewed various drafts of the study, including senior scientists at the CDC, Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies, as well as scientists from universities and state governments, according to consumeraffairs.com. Orris is just one of the several experts who reviewed the study and who, along with the International Joint Committee in a December letter to the CDC, have called for the report’s publication.

Canadian biologist Michael Gilbertson, a second peer reviewer, told the
Center for Public Integrity that he felt the findings were being
suppressed because they were "inconvenient."  On the record, he added:
“The whole problem with all this kind of work is wrapped up in that
word ‘injury.’ If you have injury, that implies liability. Liability,
of course, implies damages, legal processes, and costs of remedial
action. The governments, frankly, in both countries are so heavily
aligned with, particularly, the chemical industry, that the word
amongst the bureaucracies is that they really do not want any evidence
of effect or injury to be allowed out there."

Orris also raised concerns that the publication may have been halted
based on orders outside the CDC.  Once again, it seems that the Bush
administration is trying to shrink government by making sure that a
federal agency doesn’t do its job—a problem that I wrote about here in
a post titled “The FDA– What Happens When You Starve the Beast.” Corporate interests are protected–at the expense of the nation’s citizens.

"I have an overall concern with respect to the culture of this
administration, which permeates all levels of the scientific wing of
the government," Orris said.
"The administration has regularly cut funds so that they don’t find
statistics that could be potentially politically embarrassing — for
instance, the sampling of toxins in fish in the Great Lakes has been
cut way back."

"If the messenger doesn’t come with the message, no one knows it’s there," he added.

CDC spokesperson Bernadette Burden told OneWorld that the report was
held back because internal and external reviewers — including the
Environmental Protection Agency and several state health departments —
identified "numerous discrepancies and deficiencies" and determined a
rigorous review was needed. She added that the CDC plans to release the
report after the review is completed, in "weeks rather than months."

Burden cited several examples of “discrepancies”, including the fact
that the county-level health data "reflected people’s illnesses from
1988 to 1997, while much of the environmental data used in the report
came from the EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory dated 2001 and the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination system with 2004 data."

As Oneworld.net points out, CDC did not clarify why these issues were
not identified until July 2007 despite several years of review.

A new director of CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health and
ATSDR, Howard Frumkin, was appointed in July 2007, shortly before the
report was due to be released.  He replaced De Rosa, who had served as
director of the Division of Toxicology for fifteen years. De Rosa was
named special assistant in Frumkin’s office — a position that appears
to carry "no real responsibilities" according to a Feb. 2008 letter
from members of the Congressional Committee on Science and Technologies
to CDC director Julie Gerberding. The letter called the move an
apparent retaliation.

As many as 9 million people — including residents of Chicago,
Cleveland, Detroit, and Milwaukee — may be at risk from exposure to
pollutants including pesticides, dioxin, PCBs (Polychlorinated
Biphenyls), and mercury, according to Sheila Kaplan, an investigative
journalist who covered the story for the Center for Public Integrity.

Kaplan has read all three drafts of the study, from 2004 to 2007.

"It’s important for this work to be followed up on," she told OneWorld.
"What I hope from this report is that communities will say, ‘We deserve
to know this information and whether exposure to these chemicals and
metals is killing us.’ More work needs to be done."

You will find Kaplan’s full report here.

16 thoughts on “Government Suppresses Public Health Report”

  2. Makes me wonder now more than I already was, what will the next Prez admin. discover/uncover about the extent of suppression of public health science during the GW Bush years?
    I’m still unclear about what happened with the Surgeon General’s departure r/t suppression of his role and his department’s white papers on second hand smoke and other public health policy initiatives. (and I can imagine there are many different versions on it)
    Maggie, do you have any leads for info on this second issue? Thanks.

  4. Why am not surprised that I have not heard one peep about this in the mainstream media!!!!!!
    Not only does this horrible adminstration suppress info and lie to the American people, the news media, owned by those same corporate criminals does not even report on such important life saving information
    Impeach BUSH now!

  5. Chris, Ann M. Zagreus and Linda–
    Chris– that’s very bad news about the turnover rate in the water . . .
    Ann M. – My guess is that a lot of public information has been suppressed and a lot of work just not funded in recent years. Though in
    fairness to the Bush administration, we as a nation have not made public health a priority –even before this administratoin.
    People in “medicine” tend to look down on public health. It’s another example of how, in this country, we look at health care from an individual point of view rather than collectively.
    But one can hope that a more enlighted administration will see that putting an emphasis on public health should be part of health care reform.
    Unfortunately, I don’t know anything about second-hand smoke studies. . .
    Zagreus– Yes, I’m afraid many agencies have been politicizd–and staffed with political appointees
    Linda–I too am suprised that this didn’t turn up in the mainstream media.
    Kaplan’s report came out last Friday, and when I got it Monday, I thought it might be too late to run it.
    But when I Googled it, it turned up on just a handful of websites, and nohwere in the mainstream press. You would think that newspapers in the Great Lakes area would have taken an interest . . . The people who peer-reviewed the study are all reputable people. I’m going to see if I can get it up on the Century Foundation website.

  6. Maggie, If you wonder why any particular story that seems important does not turn up in mainstream media, read Noam Chomsky’s “manufacturing Consent”, then it all becomes clear, terrifyingly clear.

  8. Maggie et al- Consumer Affairs article from 8/06 (excerpt & link below) explores what I’d heard about Former USSG Carmona/2nd hand smoke controversy. In a Boston GLobe article last fall I recall reading that Carmona’s since teamed up with Ken Thorpe (an MD health econ based at Emory Univ.) and a few other heavy-hitter types in an effort to try and inject health promotion and dz prevention into the health plans of the prez candidates, but that some public concerns have arisen due to pharm. co. funding of their effort (statin-lowering drug makers etc).
    The (insidious) influence of mega-corporate-money on health policymaking is endless…sigh…
    ConsumerAffairs.com 8/1/06
    http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/08/surgeon_general.html
    U.S. Surgeon General Quits
    Richard Carmona Highlighted Dangers of Obesity, Second-Hand Smoke
    U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona, who highlighted the dangers of obesity and second-hand smoke, has quit, effective July 31, just a month after he released a comprehensive report on the dangers of secondhand smoke. A letter circulated on Capitol Hill informed Hill staffers of his resignation….
    Carmona conceded in an Arizona Daily Star interview that he was frustrated by the political pressures that came with the job.
    “There were many days … when science gave way to politics,” he said. “What was done was not always my decision.”
    Carmona spoke too bluntly early in his reign, telling a Congressional committee that all tobacco products should be banned. Observers said he was kept on a tight leash thereafter.
    The Bush Administration has lost several of its more outspoken public health and safety appointees….
    http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/08/surgeon_general.html

  10. Maggie and All,
    This Great Lakes situation is disheartening, in that it is indicative of the twisted logic with public health policy in the US today. There seems to be a mind set among those who have been given charge of establishing public health policy, that US citizens are nothing more than ignorant cattle. And that reports meant to inform the public of environmental dangers are too much for their little minds to comprehend without panicking. Therefore it is justifiable not to inform them at all. Some would attempt to self-justify their actions by presenting themselves as merely serving in a patriarchal role for the greater good of society. They present the concept that the “cattle” may become spooked should they become aware of the potential hazards. And society as a whole would be harmed by the angry stampede of the spooked cattle. As such and as good cattlemen of society, it is their responsibility to keep the cows calm and to hide information from the American public.
    But the reality of the matter is, this self justifying and condescending stance that has been allowed to pervade many government agencies and private sector organization to whom we have outsource control of environmental science and medicine, is nothing more than a lot of sugar coated manure. It is not concern and protection for society as a whole that stops the flow of information regarding serious environmental exposures in the US today. It is concern and protection for the financial liability of industries that have polluted and caused situations such as we are witnessing in the Great Lakes area.
    The way to solve this problem is to identify and remove those rogue cowboys from positions of authority, who have repeatedly demonstrated that their greater concern is for the financial liability of industry than it is for the health and safety of the American public.
    Sincerely,
    Mrs.O’Leary’s Cow

  13. This suppression of information and lying to the American people keeps getting worse. One of Papa Bush’s favorite private equity groups (Carlyle) bought-out Synagro Technologies, a company that processes municipal waste products, transports the resulting “sewer sludge” and distributes it for land application. Residents already living near these sites where sewer sludge has been applied have reported significant health complaints that are associated with the sludge application.
    The Carlyle Group levereaged buyout of Synagro (worth $772 million) will enable it to avoid requirements that Synagro provide to the public, shareholders, and federal agencies such as the SEC certain information about its business practices. As a result of the buyout, Synagro may not longer be required to disclose publicly the existence of regulatory inquiries or legal complaints against the company resulting from health hazards caused by Synagro products and product distribution. Private equity buyout firms such as the Carlyle Group are not required to publicly disclose information about the business practices of the companies they own (like Manor Care Nursing Homes).
    The steady cash flows nursing home operators produce is a big attraction for private equity firms that need the cash to pay down borrowed debt. Beverly, Extendicare, Genesis and Vencor/Kindred went private, and now Manor Care. Private firms keep all their dirty deeds from the public, especially consumers. You can’t see how they’re wasting money, how they’re short-staffing, under-paying workers, or find out all the intricate inter-relations they have with supposedly outsourced services like therapy. They then set up all these individual limited-liability corporations which protect them from lawsuits.

  14. Mrs. O’Leary’s Cow & Ann
    Mrs. O’Leary’s Cow wrote:
    “indicative of the twisted logic with public health policy in the US today. There seems to be a mind set among those who have been given charge of establishing public health policy, that US citizens are nothing more than ignorant cattle. And that reports meant to inform the public of environmental dangers are too much for their little minds to comprehend without panicking. Therefore it is justifiable not to inform them at all. Some would attempt to self-justify their actions by presenting themselves as merely serving in a patriarchal role for the greater good of society. They present the concept that the “cattle” may become spooked should they become aware of the potential hazards. And society as a whole would be harmed by the angry stampede of the spooked cattle.”
    From what I have heard since writing this post, this is exactly what happened–with the states in the Great Lakes region being the ones worried about spooking the cattle . . .
    Ann– Yes, the Bush administration has absolutely no interest in public health ….
    Gregory–
    I’m very intersted in the story of nursing homes going private–and being able to limit their liability.
    Can you point me toward
    any more information or sources?

Comments are closed.