Dioxin - no safe level
Robert Allen urges caution on EPA reassurances
Dioxin, that most ubiquitous manmade poison, was declared a Class
A cause of a cancer by the International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC), a World Health Organization body, in February this
year.
Now it seems that the US government has found evidence of dioxin
contamination in chickens, eggs, and farm-raised catfish, and has
banned the shipment of chickens and eggs from hundreds of
producers. The chicken-and-egg ban was announced July 8 and went
into effect July 13.
The source of the dioxin in chickens, eggs, and catfish is
reported to be a contaminated soybean-based feed produced by two
companies - Riceland Foods, Inc., and Quincy Soybean Co. - both
located in Arkansas.
Between them, these two companies send feed to 350 customers,
providing an estimated 1% of all animal feed in the US. Companies
can sell their chickens and eggs again as soon as they
demonstrate that dioxin levels in their products are below one
part per trillion (ppt).
Until now, the US has never set standards for dioxin in food. The
one-part-per-trillion standard was set by the US Food and Drug
Adminstration as a ``level of concern'' for this single instance of
dioxin contamination of animal feed. It is not to be taken as a
``general action level for dioxin in foods,'' US government
officials have emphasized.
In essence, FDA has declared that chickens and eggs are
contaminated and unfit for human consumption if they contain more
than 1 ppt dioxin.
The US Environmental Protection Agency began looking for dioxin
in food in the early 1990s, as part of the agency's ongoing
dioxin reassessment. In early drafts of its dioxin reassessment
report, EPA said 95% of human exposure to dioxins occurs chiefly
through eating red meat, fish, and dairy products. This prompted
more US government studies of dioxin in cheese, fish, pork and chicken.
Now we wouldn't want you to get concerned about this news from
Amerika. You see, according to our government, there isn't much
dioxin in the Irish environment to be worried about. But then
again there hasn't been much of an attempt to learn exactly how
much dioxin there is in the Irish environment. By their own
admission the EPA attempted ``to remedy this deficiency'' by
inviting the esteemed Christoffer Rappe of Umeå University to
analyse cow's milk in the summer of 1995. Twenty samples
were taken from full milk silos in regional creameries around the
country. Further samples were taken from areas which the EPA
perceived to be ``potential dioxin sources''. Not surprisingly the
EPA investigation was not able to report that Ireland is ``dioxin
free'' but they were able to report that the levels ``in the
environment in Ireland are low when compared with other European
countries''. So while the EPA has recommended a further study we
should sleep sound in our beds knowing
that dioxin levels in Ireland are ``very low'' - too low we must
presume then to cause harm!
That means, of course, that Irish people are not suffering from
dioxin's most powerful effects which are seen in the reproductive
system, the endocrine (hormone) system and the immune system.
Irish mothers need not concern themselves that their newborn
children may have been exposed to dioxin while in the womb.
Still we think you should know what the US EPA wrote in 1992
about dioxin:
``In mammals, postnatal functional alterations involving learning
behaviour and the developing reproductive system appear to be the
developmental events most sensitive to perinatal dioxin exposure.
The developing immune system may also be highly sensitive.''
The problem we have with dioxin levels is the evidence that is
slowly mounting which suggests there is no safe level for dioxin,
which means that only time will tell whether the EPA's confidence
in Ireland's ``low'' levels is justified and that Irish people will
not suffer the adverse affects of dioxin poisoning. Given that
Irish people consume large quantities of Irish milk, which the
EPA admits is contaminated with dioxin (albeit at point-five part
per trillion in fat), we would urge everyone to question those in
authority who would presume to tell us that these ``low'' levels
are having no effect at all on our health.