Dioxin Dorms is published by Planet Waves as a service to students and families of students at SUNY New Paltz, and to the movement for environmental justice. This is our mission statement.
Dioxin Dorms is published by Planet Waves.
By Vicky Monks | Return to Main Page
American Journalism Review, June 1993

UNLIKE THE NEWS outlets that followed Keith Schneider's lead in reporting the revisionist view of dioxin, the Washington Post had been covering it well before August 1991. But two-and-a-half months before Schneider's watershed piece, the newspaper, for no apparent reason, dropped its coverage of the issue.
Malcolm Gladwell speaks at PopTech! 2008 conference. Photo: Wikipedia.
The Post's Malcolm Gladwell was among the first reporters to embrace the "new thinking" on dioxin. On May 31, 1990, Gladwell wrote a story stating that many scientists had "sharply reduced their estimates of dioxin's cancer-causing potential." He reported that a study reevaluating slides of tumor cells developed in rates exposed to dioxin found that the chemical is "only a weak carcinogen."
Gladwell didn't mention that the study had been funded by the paper industry, nor that other scientists had disputed its results. Gladwell says it wasn't necessary to identify the study's sponsor. "It's not something we always do," he says.
Two months later, on July 27, Gladwell was at the head of the pack again when he reported on Vernon Houk's so-called reversal on dioxin risk.
In January 1991, Gladwell reported on the results of another dioxin-related cancer study. His interpretation was the opposite of that of most other reporters. A New York Times article by Warren E. Leary was headlined "High Dioxin Levels Linked to Cancer." The Wall Street Journal said, "U.S. Study Suggests Exposure to Dioxin for Long Periods Can Boost Cancer Risk."
The headline in the Washington Post read, "Extensive Study Finds Reduced Dioxin Danger." In the story, Gladwell asserted, "The results suggest that public concern over the levels of dioxin typically found in the environment may be largely unfounded. It also appears to bolster the growing view of many scientists that U.S. policy toward the chemical … are [sic] far too strict and that millions of dollars are being wasted in its unnecessary regulation."
Marilyn Fingerhut, who conducted the study for the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, disputes Gladwell's conclusions. Her study did not examine the type of low exposures found in the general pulation, she says. It could not prove that low exposures are safe.
The study did find that workers exposed to high levels of dioxin for more than a year were at much greater risk of getting cancer. An editorial accompanying the study results in the January 24, 1991, New England Journal of Medicine said, "The hypothesis that low exposures are entirely safe for humans is distinctly less tenable now than before."
Gladwell says he chose not to quote the scientist who wrote the editorial because he didn't know whether the author's view represented a scientific consensus. Instead, he quoted George Carlo, whom he identified as "one of the nation's leading dioxin experts."
At the time, Carlo had not published a paper on dioxin in a peer-reviewed journal, a publication that only publishes papers reviewed by scientists in the same field. More important, Carlo is a specialist in risk assessment and management whose clients then included the Chlorine Institute, a trade group, and Dow Chemical – both affected by dioxin regulations. Gladwell did not cite Carlo's industry connections. No one else was quoted.
When asked why he only quoted Carlo, Gladwell responded, "None of these stories are intended to be the last word on the subject….There are trends in scientific thinking. I wrote about one of them. I don't think there is any overwhelming bias."
Gladwell dropped the issue after an April 1, 1991, six-inch column in which he stated that there is "new evidence showing that dioxin poses far less risk of cancer than previously thought…."
A few weeks later, on May 25, 1991, the Post ran an unbylined AP story on Vernon Houk's flip-flop – almost a year after Gladwell reported it. Since then, the newspaper has essentially stopped covering dioxin's risks.
According to a database search, the Post's only coverage since Schneider's August 1991 article has been a January 1992 Jack Anderson column on the paper industry's anti-regulatory campaign; a March 26, 1992, editorial on regulations; and a May 26, 1992 story on how Bill Clinton, when governor of Arkansas, accommodated the state's paper industry by promulgating weak dioxin control regulations.
Vicki Monks, a Maryland-based journalist, has written for Rolling Stone and Vogue and reported for National Public Radio.

Back to DioxinDorms Main Page