RE: raw data

[Sue Darcey <sdarcey@erols.com>]

Jim:

I agree with you that release by EPA of all tox studies, even those
that exonerate a chemical, would be fine and dandy.

But really what I'm more interested in, is how those chemicals
perform in the real world, not in a laboratory setting.

That's why I just love reading the pesticide adverse effects incident
reports that EPA collects under Section 6(a)(2) of the pesticide
law, FIFRA.  Of course I have to FOIA for them now, which can take
from 4-7 months to get back results.  When I was reporting on
toxics, I also liked to read all the new TSCA Section 8(e) "notices
of substantial risk," which were treated differently -- they were
always available to the public in the Toxics Docket Room at EPA.

While the adverse effects incident reports are depressing (reading,
report by report, that 800 poodles, pekinese, german shepherds and
cats experienced "ataxia, drooling, nervous system disorders, and
death" after being exposed to one of the most commonly marketed
flea and tick powders can be quite a downer), I think it is important
information for the public to have, and should not be locked up in
some agency database over in Crystal City, Va., while Office of
Pesticide Program staff spend 6 or 7 long years persuading the
manufacturer to retool his existing product so it won't be so
harmful, or to take it off the market completely.

The adverse effects incident reports also show me all the different
creative ways that consumers can misuse chemicals, causing themselves
harm, in ways that the laboratory scientists who developed the
chemicals and chemical-containing products on the market could
never have dreamed up themselves.

Of course all those chemical product mishaps caused by consumer
misuse and product design flaws should always be put into context
by anyone interested in using the data.  EPA also keeps statistics
on how many pounds of this or that chemical is sold or used per
year, so it isn't too difficult to throw a sentence into your story
or report like, "Of 100,000 uses of the chemical per year, 600
exposures resulted in adverse minor effects, 22 resulted in more
serious effects requiring hospitalization, and 4 exposures proved
life-threatening."

If I'm going to write about adverse effects incident reports, I
also put in a disclaimer saying the reports were not necessarily
confirmed, but are merely first reports by a victim about his or
her exposure to a pesticide.

But whether the reports are "confirmed" by some agency or other
entity before their release, I still believe it is important
information for the public to have.

Sue Darcey, Pesticide Report