GOVERNMENT
Extensive Study Finds Vietnam Veterans Generally in Good Health CDC survey noted some stress problems, but didn't turn up any connections between veterans' health and exposure to herbicides in Vietnam The most extensive study to date of the health of Vietnam veterans concludes that they are generally in good health. There are a few exceptions, most notably certain psychological problems, but their physical health compares very favorably with veterans of the same age who did not serve in Vietnam. No connections were found between veterans' health and past exposure to herbicides in Vietnam. In addition, new reviews of data from the Air Force Ranch Hand study on exposure to agent orange affirm this same conclusion. The Vietnam Experience Study was a multidimensional health study involving more than 15,000 veterans. Conducted over the past several years by the Centers for Disease Control, the survey was mandated by the 1979 Veterans Health Programs Extension & Improvement Act. Initially, 7924 Vietnam veterans and 7364 non-Vietnam veterans participated in an extensive telephone survey and a random sample of 2490 veterans had a comprehensive health examination. The full report is published in a five-volume monograph by CDC, and a review of the results was reported in the May 13 Journal of the American Medical Association. Although this study was done to assess health effects related to the general Vietnam military experience and did not focus on exposure to agent orange or other herbicides,
the potential impact of chemical exposures is mentioned several times throughout the results. CDC says, however, that during the telephone interviews, some emphasis was placed on health conditions that have been suggested as being related to exposure to herbicides, or, more specifically, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD). In the telephone survey, Vietnam vets reported many different health conditions and symptoms more frequently than did other veterans, CDC says. One reason for this may be that Vietnam veterans have experienced more stress than did nonVietnam veterans. The study reports that "perceived exposure to herbi-
problems had cleared up. On the other hand, previous CDC studies have concluded that very few veterans were ever heavily exposed to TCDD-containing herbicides, so health effects would be hard to find in a later study. Overall cancer rates were the same, CDC reports, but the experience study was not designed to look for rare cancer types, an assessment that has since begun. Significant health differences that were found often had no explanation. Psychological differences included a greater number of Vietnam vets who suffered from depression, anxiety, and alcohol abuse. Physical health differences were less pronounced. A loss of hearing was
Perceived exposure by veterans to herbicides is associated with both psychological problems and with self-reported adverse health conditions cides (a perception that in itself may lead to additional stress) is associated with both psychological problems and with self-reported adverse health conditions." CDC, moreover, did not find any increased health problems from herbicides that could be measured objectively. The CDC examiners looked for differences but found none among the veterans for health effects associated with TCDD, including skin conditions such as chloracne, hepatic dysfunction, porphyria, lipid abnormalities, and impaired immune function. The report says there are several reasons why differences occur between Vietnam and nonVietnam vets. Because the examinations were performed 15 to 20 years after any exposure, perhaps any
found among Vietnam veterans, possibly because of their combat exposure. An unexplained left ventricular hypertrophy was also more prevalent in Vietnam veterans. A lot of attention is given to the finding that the Vietnam vets are twice as likely as others to have lower sperm concentrations and a significantly lower average proportion of "normal" sperm heads. These are sometimes used as indicators of reduced fertility, CDC says. But no studies have yet shown that poor sperm quality leads to adverse reproductive outcomes or birth defects, and the Vietnam vets have fathered similar numbers of children and the rates of birth defects are the same as for their nonVietnam veteran counterparts. CDC May 30, 1988 C&EN
13
Government considered the possibility that exposure to TCDD from agent orange might have affected sperm, but because so few ground troops seem to have been exposed to agent orange, the likelihood is not good. The possibility that the herbicide agent orange was responsible for some veterans' health problems was reiterated in a report by Richard A. Albanese of the Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine earlier this year. Albanese reviewed the data from the Ranch Hand study, called the Air Force Health Study, and offered a new interpretation of the data which indicates some trend toward health problems caused by agent orange. During the Vietnam war, the troops that flew the planes and helicopters spraying herbicides were part of Operation Ranch Hand. According to Albanese, review of 11 clinical conditions showed there were five statistically significant variables between the exposed veterans and controls, where the differences "were in the direction of expected dioxin effects." These areas include numbers of cases of cancer, birth defects, liver disorders, cardiovascular effects, and endrocrinological differences. Albanese's study prompted Sen. Alan Cranston (D.-Calif.) to obtain further reviews from several governmental experts and have the analysis checked by CDC and the Office of Technology Assessment. Scientists at both agencies believe that the Albanese report either overstates some relationships derived from the 1984 Ranch Hand data or has since been countered by evidence gathered in 1987. Only the potential increase in birth defects seems to be significant, and the Air Force is taking a comprehensive look at that problem. All the studies conducted so far have faced the problem that there is no easy way to judge TCDD exposure. In the past year or two, a sensitive method for measuring TCDD in blood plasma has been developed, and it is hoped that this method eventually will enable researchers to link actual exposures to TCDD with any health problems, or better yet, prove that the exposures veterans received in Vietnam are not making them sick. David Hanson, Washington 14
May 30, 1988 C&EN
EPA plans fees for registering pesticides Despite Congressional opposition, the Environmental Protection Agency is going ahead with its plan to charge a "user fee" for reviewing and processing pesticide registration applications. Under the new fee structure set by the agency, applicants will pay $184,500 for a new chemical registration, $64,000 for a new biochemical or microbial registration, $33,800 for a new use pattern of a registered pesticide, $4000 for an old chemical registration review for a new product, $4500 for an experimental-use permit to field-test a pesticide, and $700 for a registration amendment. The fee payments must be made before or at the time of the application for agency review. EPA expects to collect about $14 million annually under the new fee structure. That's slightly less than one quarter of what it cost EPA to conduct all of its pesticide activities in 1987. However, to keep the fees reasonably consistent with costs, EPA says it will change the fee schedule annually by the same percentage as the percentage change in the federal pay schedule. The agency estimates that paying the current fees will add about 2.7% to expected industry R&D costs. But that estimate is based on old data. EPA cites data from the National Agricultural Chemical Association that indicates its members spent $527 million on pesticide R&D in 1982. In addition, EPA says that the $184,500 fee for a new chemical registration represents about 0.7% of the estimated $25 million a company would spend, on average, in developing a pesticide. The final rule, which is expected to be published in the Federal Register by the beginning of June, allows the agency to waive the fees for small businesses, for field tests of minor-use pesticides that lack commercial feasibility for the applicant, and in instances where the agency determines a waiver would serve the public interest. EPA says that it has the authority to impose the new fees under the "Independent Office Appropriation Act of 1952," which "authorizes and
encourages federal regulatory agencies to recover, to the fullest extent possible, costs attributable to services provided to identifiable recipients." In addition, the agency points out that its fiscal 1988 appropriation bill contained a provision authorizing it to collect fees not to exceed $25 million in fiscal 1988 to carry out activities for which the fees and charges are made. How long the fee structure will be in effect is an open question. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act Amendments of 1987, S. 1516, which is now awaiting floor action in the Senate, would specifically prohibit EPA's new fee structure. Instead, the bill would raise $160 million over nine years by imposing a fee on EPA's pesticide reregistration process, which reviews current pesticide registrations to ensure that they are based on adequate safety and health data, and by charging a maintenance fee for the 40,000 or so pesticide products currently on the market. Specifically, S. 1516 would impose a $150,000 fee on the reregistration of each active pesticide ingredient. That fee is expected to raise a total of about $34 million. In addition, a company would pay a $425 annual maintenance fee for each pesticide product it markets up to 50 products. For each product over 50 and up to 200, the fee would be $100 per product. The maximum annual fee a company could pay would be set at $35,000. The fees would be in effect for the nine-year period EPA has under the bill to complete its reregistration process. The fees set under the bill aren't likely to take effect this year, but then neither is the prohibition on EPA's new fee structure. The chances of Congress enacting any FIFRA amendments this year are getting smaller with each day; the bill isn't even out of subcommittee in the House, and Congress has a lot of other work to do before it adjourns for election campaigning. However one looks at it, pesticide registrants are going to be paying at least part of EPA's costs of running its pesticide program. Janice Long, Washington
