WILLIAM A. DOBROVIR
SUITE 904
‘1025 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036

 

(202) 293-1544

December 2, 1970

Dr. Joshua Lederberg
Stanford University
Palo Alto, California

Dear Dr. Lederberg:

Your column on Sunday, referring to public interest
lawyers, prompts me to write concerning a litigation involving
peaticides.

First of all, I am a member of the now highly publi-
cized, but still tiny group of "public interest lawyers" in
Washington. I do a good deal of litigation for Ralph Nader
and for other public-minded individuals and groups.

The case involves the herbicide 2,4,5-T. It arose
out of research done by Harrison Wellford, of Nader's Center
for Study of Responsive Law, into the Department of Agricul-
ture's pesticide regulation activities. Wellford's work led
him into contact with Thomas Whiteside, with the National Cancer
Institute's study of pesticides' effects as carcinogens and ter-
atogens and with later work on 2,4,5-T done by Dr. M. Jacqueline
Verrett at NIH.

It became clear, by the end of 1969, that there was
danger that 2,4,5-T was teratogenic. Work in the spring tended
to confirm this, and at hearings in April before Senator Hart's
Environment subcommittee Wellford charged Agriculture and HEW
with laxity in failing to ban use of the substance. The next
week a partial ban was announced; but it failed to issue an
immediate suspension of use of 2,4,5-T on food crops. On
Wellford's behalf, and with a number of other individuals and
organizations joining, we petitioned USDA to extend the sus-
pension. It refused, and we appealed to the Court of Appeals.

The issue is whether the use of 2,4,5-T on food cre~-
ates an “imminent hazard to the public". The evidence of its

Darren steeds SIR: cas >
Dr. Joshua Lederberg Page 2 December 2, 1970

danger is all based on tests in animals, and we find ourselves
in the midst of a scientific debate over whether birth defects
in test animals are evidence of sufficient risk of birth defects
in humans to create "an imminent hazard", which is the statutory
test. The court seems puzzled over how it is to resolve the
scientific issues.

The scientific dispute is between Dr. Samuel Epstein
of the Childrens Cancer Institute and Dr. Leon Golberg of Albany
Medical School. Dr. Golberg claims that the difference between
animals and man are such, and the dosages of 2,4,5-T administered
to animals so high, that the results are not good evidence that
tiny amounts of 2,4,5-T in food can cause birth defects in preg-
nant women. Epstein says that the evidence is adequate, that
high dosages are necessary to show effects in small numbers of
test animals. That is, that while only one in 10,000 humans
might experience effects (and that of course would be tragic)

a test of 50 or 100 rats must be made at dosages high enough
to see if there are effects in 50 or 100.

I am enclosing with this letter relevant portions of
the briefs,

There is, moreover, a general question of scientific
philosophy at stake. It is where the burden of showing safety
lies. Golberg would argue that when a substance represents a
benefit, those who oppose using it should prove that it is un-
safe. Epstein would argue that introduction of any chemical
into the human food, water or air supply must be preceded by
evidence that it is safe for humans and will not increase the
carcinogenic, teratogenic and mutagenic burden. This debate
was largely muted in the Mrak report on pesticides for HEW.
Needless to say we are on the Epstein side.

The court seems troubled by this dispute and how to
resolve it in a legal framework. The case raises general is-
sues of how courts are to handle scientific matters like this;
issues that will arise again in environment cases.

Would you be willing to take a look at these papers
and give the question some thought?

Sincerely,

William A. Dobrovir

WAD/esa