Pbb Farmers Farmers Finally Get A Break

Is the “Cattlegate” Coverup Over?

By Hugh Grambau

Third of a Series

Editor's note:

In the summer of 1973 an industrial chemical called polybrominated biphenyl (PBB) was accidently mixed into animal feed and distributed around Michigan. The ultímate result of that tragic mistake was to doom 30,000 dairy cattle, 1.5 million chickens, and thousands of hogs and sheep. Further, Michigan farmers victimized by the contaminated feed have suffered severe economic, emotional, and physical hardship and have lost faith in the will and the ability of state agencies to protect their welfare. Especially hard-hit have been farmers with PBB contamination below an official tolerance level set by the FDA. Until recently they have had practically no hope of recovering damages from the responsible parties. Farmers and consumers have called the disaster "Cattlegate-bigger than Watergate. " 

On May 24, Michigan farmers with "low-level" PBB contamination in their livestock got their first break in the two years since PBB was identified in Michigan 's ecosystem. A scientific advisory panel appointed by Governor Milliken to review the problem has called for lowering the acceptable levels of PBB in meat and eggs to .005 parts per million- the smallest amount they feel can be reliably measured. The current acceptable level of .3 ppm is sixty times greater. The panel would lower PBB levels in milk even more, down to .001 ppm. 

Last week the farmers, consumers, and politicians were waiting anxiously as the PBB controversy came to a head. On June 10, the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) will hold hearings in Lansing on the panel's proposed guidelines. The department could adopt them, ignore them, or accept a less dramatic reduction. 

The suggested levels come very close to those requested by farmers and consumer groups who have been critical of the state's handling of the PBB problem. If they are adopted, more than 700 new farms will have to be quarantined, and tens of thousands more cattle will have to be destroyed, perhaps doubling the 30,000 already buried on farms and at the state burial site at Kalkaska.

Initial reaction among affected farmers was a mixture of joy and concern. 

"They made a wonderful decision," said Carol Trombley of Hersey, "but if it's not going to be followed through by all the state agencies, it won't do much good." She fears that the MDA may be slow to act on implementing the new levels, while farmers with "low-level" herds (below .3 ppm) continue to lose money feeding unproductive and doomed stock. 

"People just can 't continue waiting for more panels," says Mrs. Trombley. "We've gone to so many meetings already, and we just don't have any more energy.”

The panel's report is the first break in the long stalemate between affected farmers and the state since the action level was lowered by the FDA from 1.0 ppm to .3 ppm in November, 1974. Although not intended as such by the FDA, the .3 ppm level has been effectively adopted by Farm Bureau Services, Inc. (the company which distributed the contaminated feed) as a limit of liability. If the lower levels are adopted, many more farms will be officially quarantined, and it will be much harder for Farm Bureau to avoid liability for the losses incurred.

The report also puts Governor Milliken and his administration in a ticklish spot, since he is more or less committed to support his own experts' advice. 

Last April, Milliken suggested that charges of inaction leveled against the state by farmers were unfounded, and basically presented only a public relations problem. 

The question now is whether the Department of Agriculture will voluntarily adopt the new guidelines, or whether the Legislature will have to pass a law to establish them. 

"I don 't think the battle's over," said Jim Barcia, administrative aide to Committee Co-Chairman Don Albosta (D- St. Charles) after the committee meeting. "The Department of Agriculculture testified that they disagree with the report's conclusions. They don't accept the recommendations of Milliken's hand-picked advisors." 

Predictably, Michigan Farm Bureau came out against the panel's recommendations. President Elton R. Smith, in response to the report, said that it would cause "unnecessary economic havoc" in the state, and carefully attempted to equate Farm Bureau's interests with that of Michigan farmers. Also unhappy with the report was Dr. Donald Isleib, scientific advisor to the Department of Agriculture, who was concerned about the cost of increased damage claims. It was perhaps unfortunate, he felt, that the panel "was not obligated to make any study of the cost effectiveness of the action they recommended." 

On the other side, Jack Murray, representative of the National Farmers Organization's cattle division, charges that without stricter limits, Michigan agriculture faces eventual disaster. "There's the possibility of a wall being built around Michigan," he said recently to a consumer group. "Eastern packing plants are saying they don't want Michigan cattle." 

How much time it takes to establish the lower PBB guidelines may have important implications for Michigan consumers, because some farmers with "low-level" herds may prefer to sell their animals fast, rather than wait for quarantine, then two or more years for a settlement from Farm Bureau's insurance company. 

"I anticipate that there's going to be a bunch of cheap animals going to the market in the next few days," says Hank Babbitt, a journalist in Sault Ste. Marie, who has been closely following the PBB problem in Chippewa County. "Those farmers don't want to wait around for two years." 

Babbitt and his wife, Donna, became concerned about PBB when their son Scott, 15, became too weak to participate in his normal activities. He was tested for PBB and found to have .27 ppm in his fat tissue. The Babbitts live in the city and figure that their children were exposed to PBB by drinking milk from the grocery store. 

Farmers concerned about their families and their livestock were charged with poor management, dishonesty, and hysteria. But the lower tolerance levels for PBB recently proposed by the Governor's panel come very close to those urged by concerned farmers and consumers. 

continued on page 30 

continued from page 5 

From the beginning, it has been the affected farmers and outside researchers who were initially responsible for discovering the cause of PBB poisoning, revealing its extent, and warning the public of the dangers. Many farmers feel the state deliberately covered up the human and animal health problems caused by PBB. 

The Milliken panel recommended lowering PBB levels in Michigan food as a precautionary step because of the possibility that the chemical could cause cancer over a long period of time. They reported that they found no evidence of acute health problems in animals or humans due to PBB. Yet in answering reporters' questions, panel chairman Dr. Isadore Bernstein said that their conclusions about human health were primarily based on two studies: one conducted by the Michigan Chemical Corporation on workers at its St. Louis, Michigan plant where PBB was manufactured (released in June, 1975) and one conducted by the Michigan Department of Public Health (released in March, 1975.) The Health Department study has been severely criticized because the presumably "unexposed" control group of farm families was not free of PBB, and because its data were based on blood samples, which some experts feel is an unreliable way to measure PBB exposure. In addition, no follow-up study has been done.

More than a year ago, Michigan and the federal government agreed to undertake an in-depth three-year study of the long-term human health problems associated with PBB. That study will not even begin for several more months. Until the results are in, we may not have any accurate scientific data on the human health problems. 

Hank Babbitt sent an informal questionnaire to 500 quarantined farms, asking if the families experienced any health problems. So far, he has had 130 replies. On 80 of the 130 farms responding, a pattern of fatigue, sore joints, stomach and skin problems is apparent. Babbitt doesn't pretend that his study is scientific, but his observations do confirm the reports of farmers across the state. 

From the beginning of the PBB disaster to the end, it has been the affected farmers and outside researchers who were initially responsible for discovering the cause of PBB poisoning, revealing its extent, and warning the public of the dangers posed by the problem. They had to convince the state each step of the way that there was something wrong. Instead of being sought out by the Departments of Health and Agriculture, they often accidentally discovered that their farms were contaminated when their animals started showing symptoms of PBB poisoning. In the meantime, they had for months consumed contaminated meat, milk and eggs -months after the grain outlets that distributed contaminated feed were identified. 

Earnest and productive farmers concerned about their families and about dairy cows they knew by name, were charged with poor management- not only by the Farm Bureau, which might be expected, but by state agriculture officials too. It has been suggested that the farmers are either hysterical or unscrupulous. 

Many farmers feel there has been a deliberate cover-up of the human and animal health problems caused by PBB. They point out that: 

• When certain fat samples from exposed cattle were cut in two, and half was sent to the Agriculture Department, the other half to a private lab for testing, the state results were consistently far below those found by the private lab. 

• When persons exposed to PBB and suffering from unexplained symptoms volunteered their records to the Health Department, they were told the Department had all the data it needed. 

• When Dr. David Salvati, Big Rapids, wanted to have blood serum tests run on patients from a "low-level" farm, he was informed that the state would only accept samples from persons on quarantined farms for testing. 

• Eleven samples that Salvati did send in June and July 1975 were reported lost in the mail by the Health Department ten weeks later. 
• When Doug Green of Chase and Louise Trombley of Hersey requested that soil samples from their farms be tested for PBB, so they could be sure it was safe to plant, they were told that it was Agriculture Department Policy not to test soil samples. 

• In several cases, the Agriculture Department encouraged farmers quarantined because of a few animals tested above the .3 ppm tolerance level to destroy those animals and sell off the rest of their herds without further testing of unchecked animals.

 Does this pattern constitute a deliberate cover-up? The answer is unclear. What is clear is that the state has been less than eager to find the answers to the PBB problem, and that the farmers were left holding the bag. 

Governor Milliken's panel of experts has now given his administration a new chance to demonstrate its ability to clean up what has become a murky business. Michigan will be watching closely to see what happens.