‘Trade Secrets’: Chemical Industry Esposé

The Chemical Papers

Secrets of the chemical industry exposed

By Don Hazen

LIKE ERIN BROCKOVICH, the paralegal-turned-movie icon who fought against toxic polluters in California, Elaine Ross was determined to uncover the truth. Ross wanted to know what had killed her husband, a chemical plant worker in the bayous of Louisiana, at the untimely age of 46. She teamed up with crusading lawyer William “Billy” Baggett Jr., the son of a famous Southern litigator, and together they have become central figures in a David-and-Goliath battle to protect the health of all Americans, especially workers.

Now, in the latest chapter of the story, a team led by Bill Moyers has created a PBS special report called Trade Secrets that will air on Monday evening, March 26. The special, based on a secret archive of chemical industry documents, explores the industry pattern of obfuscating, denying, and hiding the dangerous effects of chemicals on unsuspecting workers and consumers.

At its core, the Moyers show asks a deeply troubling question: With more than 75,000 synthetic chemicals having been released into the environment, what happens as our bodies absorb them, and how can we protect ourselves? As part of the report, Moyers took tests designed to measure the synthetic chemcials in his body–a measurement known as “chemical body burden.” Moyers learned that his body contained 31 diffferent types of PCBs, 13 different toxins, and pesticides such as malathion and DDT.

When it hits the air, the Moyers special is expected to re-energize veteran health activists and medical professionals in their fight against a growing problem–unregulated and untested chemicals flooding the commercial market-place. This public heat, coupled with a burgeoning grassroots resistance to chemical producers, may set the industry on the defensive like never before . . . but that’s getting ahead of the story.

Legal Battle in the Bayou

Elaine Ross’s husband, Dan, spent 23 years working at the Conoco (later Vista) chemical plant in Lake Charles, La. After being diagnosed with brain cancer, according to Jim Morris of the Houston Chronicle, “Dan Ross came to believe that he had struck a terrible bargain, forfeiting perhaps 30 years of his life through his willingness to work with vinyl chloride, used to make one of the world’s most common plastics.”

“Just before he died [in 1990] he said, ‘Mama, they killed me,’ ” recalled Elaine. “I promised him I would never let Vista or the chemical industry forget who he was.”

And she hasn’t. She teamed up with Billy Baggett to file a wrongful death suit against Vista. Baggett won a multimillion-dollar settlement for Ross in 1994, but she wasn’t satisfied with just the money. She knew that her husband’s death wasn’t an isolated incident–that many other chemical plant workers were dead, dying, or sick because their employers weren’t telling them about potential health hazards. And Vista certainly wasn’t the only culprit.

So Ross told Baggett to take the fight to the next level. Baggett did, suing 30 companies and trade associations, including the Chemical Manufacturers Association (now called the American Chemistry Council) for conspiracy, alleging that they hid and suppressed evidence of vinyl chloride-related deaths and diseases.

As a result of the litigation brought on Ross’ behalf, Baggett has been able to obtain what he says is more than a million previously secret industry documents over the past decade. These “Chemical Papers,” as they are becoming known, chronicled virtually the entire history of the chemical industry, much of it related to vinyl chloride–minutes of board meetings, minutes of committee meetings, consultant reports, and on and on.

According to Jim Morris of the Houston Chronicle, the documents suggested that major chemical manufacturers closed ranks in the late 1950s to contain and counteract evidence of vinyl chloride’s toxic effects. “They depict a framework of dubious science and painstaking public relations, coordinated by the industry’s main trade association with two dominant themes: Avoid disclosure and deny liability.” The chemical companies were hiding the fact that they had “subjected at least two generations of workers to excessive levels of a potent carcinogen that targets the liver, brain, lungs and blood-forming organs.”

“Even though they [the chemical companies] may be competitive in some spheres, in others they aren’t,” Baggett told Morris. “They have a mutual interest in their own employees not knowing [about health effects], in their customers not knowing, in the government not knowing.”

“There was a concerted effort to hide this material,” said Dr. David Rosner, a professor of public health and history at Columbia University who has reviewed many of the documents as part of a research project. “It’s clear there was chicanery.”

And while the documents show that the companies freely shared health information among themselves, they “were evasive with their own employees and the government,” wrote Morris. “They were unwilling to disrupt the growing market for polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic, used in everything from pipe to garden hoses.” The whole case and others like it “accentuate the problem of occupational cancer, which, by some estimates, takes more lives (50,000) each year than AIDS, homicide or suicide, but receives far less attention.”

“What I hope to achieve, through Billy, is that every man who works in a chemical plant is told the truth and tested on a regular basis in the proper manner,” Elaine Ross told the Houston Chronicle. “I want the chemical companies to be accountable for every little detail that they don’t tell these men.”

In a prepared statement, the Chemical Manufacturers Association called such charges “irresponsible.” The group said that it promotes a policy of openness among its members.

From Courtroom to Television Set

Award-winning TV producer Sherry Jones, who got access to the treasure trove of chemical company archives, started deeply probing the industry and its secret ways. She brought her findings to Bill Moyers, with whom she had previously worked.

Moyers agreed that the story needed to be told. The result of their collaboration is Trade Secrets, the 90-minute special that will be followed by a 30-minute roundtable discussion among industry representatives and advocates for public health and environmental justice. Coming as it does on Monday night, March 26–the night after the Academy Awards, where Julia Roberts may very well receive an Oscar for her portrayal of Erin Brockovich–this one-two punch of mass audience attention could deal the chemical industry quite a blow.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Center for Disease Control has released its National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (available at www.cdc.gov/nceh/dls/report). The report, based on new technology that measures chemicals directly in blood and urine, has found a wide range of dangerous chemicals present in most humans.

Citizen activists and health experts have been fighting for decades to protect their families from untested and unsafe synthetic chemicals. It has been a difficult battle, owing in part to public misconceptions. Almost 80 percent of Americans think that the government tests chemicals for safety, which is untrue. Aside from chemicals directly added to food or drugs, there are no health and safety studies required before a chemical is manufactured, sold, or used in commercial or retail products. The same is true for cosmetic products and the chemicals in them.

So if the government isn’t regulating chemical safety, who is? Unfortunately, the chemical industry itself.

As health advocates have long complained, this self-regulation simply isn’t enough. “For the most part, we rely on chemical companies to vouch for the safety of their products,” says public health advocate Charlotte Brody, a former nurse. “That’s like relying on the tobacco industry to assess the risk of tobacco.”

Take the case of Dursban, Dow Chemical’s indoor insecticide product. Even after 276 people filed lawsuits claiming that they were poisoned by Dursban, Dow didn’t reveal information about the product that proved its toxicity. When the truth finally came out in 1996, the company was fined a miniscule $740,000 by the Feds for withholding information from public officials.

Critics have long said that strong government regulations would have prevented such fiascoes, and with Trade Secrets and the Chemical Papers as ammunition, they may be closer to getting their wish than ever before.

Taking the Chemical Industry to Task

Using the Moyers special as a rallying point, a coalition of grassroots groups called “Coming Clean” has bonded together to oppose the chemical industry. In early March, dozens of national leaders–health professionals, scientists, activists, and media experts–gathered for a weekend retreat in northern Virginia to plan the elements of this long-term assault. Charlotte Brody, currently Coming Clean’s head organizer, expressed the anger and outrage behind the meeting.

“For decades, chemical companies kept secret the hazards of chemicals they produce,” Brody said. “These chemicals are in our food, our water, the air we breathe. Now, they’re in all of us. Every child on earth is born with these synthetic chemicals in their bodies, and only a small percentage of these chemicals have been adequately tested.”

Dr. Mark Mitchell, a physician from Hartford, Conn., and one of the leaders of the national effort, insisted that to protect ourselves and our children from the harm of toxic chemicals, “we must phase out all dangerous chemicals over the next 10 years, beginning with those for which there are safer alternatives. And we must stop making the same mistakes by prohibiting the introduction of any new chemicals that pose a threat to our health and our children’s health. There also needs to be government action to insure the right to know about toxic chemicals, production, use, and test results.”

As a first step, Coming Clean plans to engage the public with the message of Trade Secrets. All across the country, thousands of events and viewing parties are being organized, timed to coincide with the Moyers show. The events harken back to the campaign surrounding the 1980s nuclear holocaust film The Day After, which galvanized a vanguard of anti-nuke activists to oppose the arms race.

“The local viewing parties will give people a chance to talk about the film after they see it,” says Stacy Malkan, Coming Clean’s media coordinator. “Rather than going to bed angry, they can discuss the issues with other concerned neighbors, and then channel their outrage and ideas into powerful grassroots coalitions.”

Momentum around the Moyers special seems to be picking up. The Whole Foods supermarket chain has agreed to carry Coming Clean’s flyers in every one of their stores, and many e-mail listservs, chat rooms, and message boards are buzzing about the March 26 show.

While most viewings will happen in private homes, activists in dozens of cities–from Anchorage to Austin to Biddeford, Maine–are holding public viewing events. In Ann Arbor, for example, a public viewing will be held in an organic-brew pub. In Buffalo, N. Y., environmental and labor leaders will stage a public showing and will use it as an opportunity to recognize three local whistleblowers battling pollution and environmental injustice. And in San Francisco, where breast cancer rates are among the highest in the country, Mayor Willie Brown, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, and Sen. Barbara Boxer will all watch the show at the public library.

Eventually, the coalition hopes to harness the public outcry to push for government regulations and class-action suits against the chemical giants. Some organizers are hoping that Congress finally wakes up and focuses a spotlight on the chemical industry, while others are calling for corporate accountability.

“The American people deserve to know what chemical executives knew and when they knew it,” said Gary Cohen, a leader of the Boston-based Environmental Health Fund and co-coordinator of the group Health Care Without Harm.

Chemical Industry Backlash

In all likelihood, the chemical industry will trudge out familiar responses to Trade Secrets. They will bring in experts to argue the scientific validity of chemical poisoning. They will say, for example, that doses are so low that animals would have to drink 50,000 bathtubs of contaminated water to suffer any harm. But health professionals counter that small doses can have measurable impact in humans, and that people are often more sensitive to toxic substances than test animals. Furthermore, no tests have been done on the cumulative, long-term effects of small doses.

The industry also likes to tell the public that it has changed since the ’50s, ’60s, and ’70s, when chemical companies stonewalled every request for information or hint of danger. Of course, major incidents like the debacle over Dursban undermine that claim. Thus, despite millions of dollars of effort over the years, the public ranks the industry next to last in terms of public confidence (trailing only the tobacco industry).

So the chemical industry has essentially abandoned its efforts to change public opinion. As in most industries with health and safety issues, the chemical giants focus instead directly on Congress, where lobbying and campaign contributions are often more effective ways to wage their battle. Their goal is a simple one: to make sure that no laws would ever require them to perform health and safety testing for the compounds they produce.

Clearly, they have been totally successful thus far. But the time may be ripe for change. Polls show public sentiment is increasingly anti-corporate. According to a recent Business Week poll, 82 percent of the public feels that corporations wield too much power. According to a recent Roper poll, half the population feels that environmental regulations haven’t gone far enough.

With the chemical industry at the bottom of the public’s “good corporate citizen” list, a critical mass of citizens may soon come together to fight back.

From the March 22-28, 2001 issue of the Northern California Bohemian.

© Metro Publishing Inc.