Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjoh20

Download by: [University of Illinois, Chicago] Date: 14 November 2016, At: 17:47

International Journal of Occupational and EnvironmentalHealth

ISSN: 1077-3525 (Print) 2049-3967 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjoh20

Texaco and its Consultants

To cite this article: (2005) Texaco and its Consultants, International Journal of Occupationaland Environmental Health, 11:2, 217-220, DOI: 10.1179/oeh.2005.11.2.217

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/oeh.2005.11.2.217

Published online: 19 Jul 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 12

View related articles

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Texaco and its Consultants

A..n issue relevant to scientifitintegrity has arisen in ·connec-

tion with a court case in theAmazon, wherein the Amazonianpeople are seeking redress for envi-ronmental damage and deleterioushealth effects related to the opera-tions of Texaco in the Amazonregion of Ecuador. It has been esti-mated that in its more than 20 yearsof oil exploitation·· in Ecuador(1971-1992), Texaco dischargedinto the environment 16.8 milliongallons of' crude oil and· 20 billiongallons of toxic wastes.1 The. envi-ronmental damage caused byTexaco can be compared to 10.8million gallons of crude oil spilledin Alaska in the Exxon. Valdeztanker disaster in 1989. Mor~over,six hundred open pits filled withtoxic waste were apparently left inthe surrounding' communities in. Ecuador.2,3 In 1995, the companysigned' an agreement with Ecua-dor's government to undertakeclean up activities in return forreleasing the company from futureresponsibility related' to its formeroil operations.4

On February 10, 2005, duringthe ongoing court proceedings,major newspapers in Ecuador ran afull-page (presumably paid) adver-tisement citing reports by scientists'retained by Texaco who critiquedstudies published in prestigiouspeer-reviewed journals that suggestlinks between adverse health effectsand oil development in theAmazon.5-1oTexaco's consultantscientists, Kenneth Rothman, FelixArellano, Alvaro Felipe DavalosPerez, Lowell Sever, DavidJ. Hewitt,and Laura Green, pointed toalleged weaknesses in the ..pub-lished studies. The ad was, to us, ablatant effort by the company tosway. public opinion as the legalcase was being heard. The Web siteis available at: <http://www.texaco.com/ sitelets/ecuador! en!legal_

archives! press!2005-02-02_health_news.asp>.Epidemiologic studies, however

meticulously conducted, may haveinherent limitations, as allepidemi-ologists are aware. Epidemiology isnot laboratory science but a studyof the' real world, and thus alwayssubjectto challenge in its ability tocontrol for. all potential· effects.Especially, in .vulnerable study .pop-ulations, exact· details of the· popu-lations.at risk, as well as the extents,natures, and durations of expo-sures, are difficult· to document,and ascertainment of 'outcomes islimited by the quality of healthservices available.However, epidemiologic find-

ings' can confidently detect trends,and it is the body of evidence thatshould influence policy.' The scien-.tificprocessof peer. review ascer-tains .whether the potential weak-nesses of any' study raise doubtssufficient. to preclude publicationof its .findings and' conclusions.Texaco's consultants went to greatpains to find flaws.in the studies.Some of the so-:-calledweaknessesthey point out are not even them-selves of particular concern, e.g.,while "memory bias of respon-dents" may be .a confounder insome circumstances, it· is hardly afactor in the case of remembering

< pregnancy and spontaneous abor-tion ..·Self-reported health effects-of which they also seem to questionthe validity-is a widely used· andaccepted practice.The onus cannot be put on sci.;.

entists to ensure that data are avail-able· 'to evaluate adverse healthimpacts. It is far more logical torequire' a company extracting min-erals· or biological raw materials toaccept responsibility, as good corpo-rate citizens, for determining whatprotective measures it would beprudent to impose, and to monitorits success in controlling poten>-

tial adverse human health and envi-ronmental effects. If this did notoccur, should we not be asking "whynot"? In 'many" jurisdictions,envi-ronmental health, impact assess-ments are now ,required-:7"puttingthe onus where it belongs: on thosewho, are responsible for the poten':'tial health impacts. In fact, environ-mental health impact assessmentsare 'increasingly addressing. not onlydirect (toxicologic),. but also indi-rect ,impacts, of development· proj-ects (health effects mediated bychanges in ecologic and social sys-tems).1l,12Texaco's Web site main-tains that the primary causes of dis-ease in the region are poverty, poorsanitation, naturally occurringbac-teria and. parasites, a lack ·of accessto clean water, and insufficientinfrastructure, adding that, "it isboth irresponsible and inaccuratefor the plaintiffs to ignore. thesewell-documented conditions." Yetnowhere does Texaco mention howoil development has conceivably:'altered these conditions, nor does itstate that such conditions' increasevulnerability to the environmentalexposures of concern. Responsibleenvironmen tal health scientists,cognizant of the need to.assess indi-rect as well as direct health effects ofoperations such as these, wouldhave raised these issues \n an openand comprehensive discussion.Texaco's protagonists, whether or

not, they agree, about the adversehealth impacts of the social and eco-logic disruptions related to the oilcompany's operations, can hardlybelieve· that the agents involved indrilling, and in the extracted oil, areinnocuous. The hired experts.neverreferred to industrial and environ-mental exposure records, so pre-sumably either the company failedto collect and maintain these data orthe containment of the toxic agentswas ineffective, and therefore notmentioned: The consultants com-missioned by Texaco might havereasonably been expected to notethat in the light of the monitoring,control, and mitigating measuresprovided to· them by the company

VOL 11INO 2, APR/JUN 2005 • www.ijoeh.com Letters • 217

there would have been no reasonfor the populations to have experi-enced any disease excesses. Theirfailure to allude to the control meas-ures instituted by Texaco certainlyraises questions.Scientists welcome illumination

of scientific limitations, particularlyfor the purposes of promotingbetter studies. However, the place toair legitimate scientific concernsabout the quality of publishedresearch is in the research literatureitself, wherein the critiques them-selves would· be subject to peerreview. The original authors thenhave the opportunity to respond tothe critiques in an environment. ofopen scien tific dialogue andscrutiny by scientists internationally.When this is not done, as has hap-pened in this case, the public maybe seriously misled. We encourageour colleagues to submit their cri-tiques of published studies to thescientific literature, not to indus-tries that may be assumed to havevested·interests in gainsaYing incon-venient scientific evidence, such asTexaco's apparent interest in pro-tecting itself by undermining theAmazonian people'squest for envi-ronmen tal justice.

JAIME BREILH, MD, MSc, PHD

Health Research and Advisory CenterQuito, Ecuador

JEFFER CASTELO BRANCO, MD

Association for Occupational DiseasePrevention

Santos, Brazil

BARRY!. CASTLEMAN,ScD

Garrett Park, Maryland

MARTIN CHERNIACK, MD, MPH

University of Connecticut Health CenterFarmington, "Connecticut

DAVID C. CHRISTIANI, MD, MPH

Harvard School of Pub'zicHealthBoston, Massachusetts

ANDRECICOLELLA, PHD

French National Instit"!te ofEnvironmental Risks

Verneuil-en-Halatte, France

ENRIQUE CIFUENTES, MD, PHD

National Institute of Public HealthCuernavaca, Mexico

RICHARD CLAPP, DSc, MPH

Boston University School of PublicHealth

Massachusetts

DONALD C. COLE, MD, MSc

Department of Public Health SciencesUniversity of TorontoOntario, Canada

MORTON CORN, PHD, MS

Bloomberg School of Public HealthTheJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimore, Maryland

STELLA DE BEN, MD

University of the RepublicMontevideo, Uruguay

RAFAEL DIAZ, MD

Colombian Safety CouncilBogota, Colombia

DAVID EGILMAN, MD, MPH

Brown UniversityRhode Island

YORAM FINKELSTEIN, MD, PHD

Shaarey Zedek HospitalJerusalem, Israel

GIULIANO FRANCO, MD

Occupational Health UnitUniversity of Modena School ofMedicine

Italy

ARTHUR L. FRANK, MD, PHD

Drexel University School of PublicHealth

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

LEE FRIEDMAN, MPH

Social Policy Research InstituteUniversity of Illinois

THOMAS H. GASSERT, MD, MPH

Harvard School of Public HealthBoston, Massachusetts

MICHAEL GOCHFELD, MD, PHD

UMDNJ-Robert WoodJohnsonMedical School

Piscataway; New Jersey

MORRIS GREENBERG, MB, FRCP

Former HM Inspector of FactoriesLondon, England

EVA S. HANSEN, PHDInstitute of Public HealthUniversity of CopenhagenDenmark

ALAsTAIR HAY, PHD

University of LeedsUnited Kingdom

CHRISTER HOGSTEDT, MD

National Institute of Public HealthStockholm, Sweden

JAMES HUFF, PHD

National Institute of EnvironmentalHealth Sciences

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

TUSHAR KANT JOSHI, MBBS,.MSc

Centerfor Occupational andEnvironmental Health

New Delhi, India

DAVID KRIEBEL, ScD

School of Health &"EnvironmentUniversity of Massachusetts Lowell

AMALIA LABORDE, MD

Department of Occupational Healthand Toxicology

Uruguay

JOSEPH LADou, .MD

University of California School ofMedicine

San Francisco

CHARLES LEVENSTEIN, PHD, MS

Department of Work EnvironmentUniversity. of Massachusetts Lowell

STEPHEN M. LEVIN, MD

Mount Sinai School of MedicineNew York, New York

RENE LOEWENSON, PHD

Training and Research Support CentreZimbabwe

MIKHAIL MIKHEEV, MD, PHD

Department of Occupational HealthMedical Academy of PostgraduateStudies .

Saint Petersburg, Russia

218 • Letters www.ijoeh.com • INT J OCCUP ENVIRON HEALTH

RAUL MONTENEGRO, PHD

National' University of CordobaArgentina

RAJENNAIDOO, MBCHB,' MPH, PHD

Uni()ersity ofKwaZulu NatalDurban) ,South Africa

David Ozonoff, MD, MPH

Depttrtment of Environmental HealthBoston University School of PublicHealth

Massachusetts

TIMO PARTANEN, PHD, MSc, MPH

Central A11}£ricanInstituteJor Studieson Toxic Substances

National UniversityCosta Rica

RAQUEL IRENE PENDITO, MD

Cathedra' of Legal MedicineUniversity of CordobaArgentina

GEORGE POVEY, MD

Department of Health Care andEpidemiology

University of British ColumbiaVancouver, Canada

ELIHU D.,RICHTER, MD, MPH

Occupational and EnvironmentalMedicine

Hebrew University..:-Hadassah Schoolof Public Health

Jerusalem, Israel

\ANTHONY ROBBINS, MD, MPA

School of Public HealthTufts University School of MedicineBoston, Massachusetts

HELENO RODRIGUESCORlU:A FILHO,

MD, DRPH

Silo Paulo State University at CampinasBrazil

KENNETH D. ROSENMAN, MD

Division of Occupational andEnvironmental 'Medicine

Michigan State UniversityEast Lansing

SHELDON W. SAMUELS

Health, Safety and EnvironmentAFL-CIOMaryland

VILMA SOUSA SANTANA,MD, MPH,

PHDInstitute of Collective HealthFederal University of BahiaBrazil

BiuAN. S. SCHWARTZ, MD,MS

Division of Occupational and,Environmental Health

Johns Hopkins UniversityBl?orr;bergSchool of Public HealthBaltimore, Maryland

C. EDUARDO SIQUEIRA, MD,ScD

Department of Work EnvironmentUniversity of Massachusetts Lowell

COLIN L. SOSKOLNE, PHD

Department of Public Health SciencesUniversity of AlbertaEdmonton, ,Canada

JERRY SPIEGEL, PHD

Liu Institute for Global IssuesUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver, Canada

CAROLYN STEPHENS, MA,MSc, PBD

Department of Public Health andPolicy

London· School of Hygiene & TropicalMedicine

United Kingdom

MANSOUREH TAJIK, PHD

School of Public HealthUniversity of North Carolina atChapel Hill

TIMK. TAKARo, MD,MPH

University of Washington School ofMedicine

Seattle" Washington

DANIEL THAU TEITELBAUM, MD

University ofColorpdo School ofMedicine

Denver

JOEL A. TICKNER, ScD

School of Health and the EnvironmentUniversity of Massachusetts Lowell

LORENZO TOMATIS, MD

International Society of Doctors for theEnvironmentTrieste"Italy

CESAR VICTORA, MD, PHD

Department of EpidemiologyFederal University of PelotasBrazil

DAVID WALTNER-TOEWS, DVM, PHD

Department of Popula,tion MedicineUniversity of GuelphOntario) Canada

RICHARD P. WEDEEN,MD

Prev~ntive Medicine and CommunityH~alth

UMf)NJ~NetvJersey Medical School

DAVIDH. WEGMAN, MD, MSc

School of Health and EnvironmentUniversity of Massachusetts Lowell

CATHARINA WESSELING,MD, PHD

Program on Work and Health inCentral America.

Central Amen can Institute/or Studieson Toxic Substances

National UniversityCosta Rica

STEVEN WING, PHD

Department of EpidemiologySchool of Public HealthUniversity of North Carolina atChapel Hill

ANNALEE YASSI, MD,MSc

Institute of Health Promotion' ResearchUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver, Canada

References

1. Koenig K. Chevron-Texaco on trial.World Watch magazine. January /Feb-ruary 2004. World Watch Institute, pp.10-19. Available at: <http://www.world-watch.org/pubs/mag/2004/171/>.

2. Kimerling J. Amazon crude. Washing-ton, DC: Natural Resources DefenseCouncil, 1991.

3. KimerlingJ. The environmental auditof Texaco's Amazon oil fields:justice orbusiness as 'usual? Harvard HumanRights Journal. '1994;7: 199-224.

4. Ministry of Energy and Mines, Repub-lie of Ecuador-Texaco oil company.Contract for implementing of environ-mental remedial work and release formobligations, liability ;:md claims, 1995.Available at: <http://www.texaco.com/site1ets/ ecuador / docs/ contract.pdf>.

5. San Sebastian M, Armstrong B, Cor-doba JA, Stephens C. Exposures andcancer incidence near oil fields in theAmazon basin of Ecuador. Occup Envi-ron Med. 2001;58:517-22.

VOL 11INa 2~APR/JUN 2005 • www.ijoeh.com Letters • 219

6. San Sebastian M, Armstrong B,Stephens C. Health of women livingnear oil wells and oil production sta-tions in the Amazon region of Ecuador.Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2001;9:375-84. [In Spanish]

7. San Sebastian M, Armstrong B,Stephens C. Outcomes of pregnancyamong women living in the proximityof oil fields in the Amazon basin ofEcuador. lnt] Occup Environ Health.2002;8:312-9.

8. Hurtig AK, San Sebastian M. Gyneco-logic and breast malignancies in theAmazon basin of Ecuador, 1985-1998.lnt] Gynecol Obstet. 2002;76:199-201.

9. Hurtig AK, San Sebastian M. Geo-graphical differences in cancer inci-dence in the Amazon basin of Ecuadorin relation to residence near oil fields.lnt] Epidemiol. 2002;31:1021-7.

10. Hurtig AK, San Sebastian M. Incidenceof childhood leukemia and oilexploitation in the Amazon basin of

ANNOUNCEMENT

Ecuador. lnt] Occup Environ Health.2004;10:245-50.

11. ]ochnick C, Normand R, Zaidi S.Rights violations in the EcuadorianAmazon: the human consequences ofoil development. Health and HumanRights. 1994;1:82-100.

12. Kimerling· J. Rights, responsibilities,and realities: environmental protectionlaw in Ecuador's Amazon oil fields.Southwestern ] ournal of Law .andTrade in the Americas. 1995;2:293-384.

European Asbestos Conference in Belgium

The use of asbestos was banned in all 25 Member States of the European Unionas of January 1, 2005. Unfortunately, the repercussions of a hundred years ofwidespread asbestos use remain in contaminated national infrastructures, theenvironment, and the lungs of European men and women. It has been esti-mated that in the current 35-year period, a quarter, of a million men could diein Western Europe from mesothelioma, a type of cancer caused by exposure toasbestos. These deaths are occurring in .countries many of which had regula-tions to minimize hazardous occupational exposures. How much worse will thedeath toll be in those countries, such as many of the new Member States, wheresuch regulations did not exist or were poorly enforced?

A European Asbestos Conference, which is being organized by the CUE, a con-sortium of European left-wing political parties, and the International BanAsbestos Secretariat (IBAS) will take place September 22 and 23, 2005, in theEuropean Parliament in Brussels. The objectives of this event include: increas-ing politicians' (especially MEPs from the new Member States) awareness ofasbestos-related problems, exploring options for pressing European multina-tionals to:.adopt corporate codes against using asbestos in their worldwide oper-ations and establish codes of practice for dealing with asbestos products in theirinfrastructures, and examining strategies and planning future initiatives.

For more information contact.Laurie Kazan-Allen, IBASCoordinator, bye-mail:<laurie@lkaz.demon.co.uk>.

220 Letters www.ijoeh.com • INT JOCCUP ENVIRON HEALTH