A Good Guide for Shopping

  • The Good Guide website's turkey rating page. (Image by Jessi Ziegler)

There’s a new way for consumers to find
out more about the products they buy.
Samara Freemark has the story
of a new online guide that lets you look
up how good products are for you and for
the environment:

Transcript

There’s a new way for consumers to find
out more about the products they buy.
Samara Freemark has the story
of a new online guide that lets you look
up how good products are for you and for
the environment:

The website is called the Good Guide, and it lets consumers get a pretty in-depth look at more than 60,000 foods and household products. The site ranks products by their impacts on health, the environment, and society.

The Good Guide is the brainchild of Dara O’Rourke. He’s a professor of environmental policy at the University of California at Berkley. O’Rourke says consumers don’t have easy access to the information they need to make smart buying decisions.

“What we’re trying to do is bring the best available science, put it in an easy accessible and free format, then get it to people whenever and wherever they make a decision about a product or a company.”

That’s where the Good Guide iphone application comes in. Shoppers can scan barcodes at the store to get instant product information.

That application, and the site, can be found at goodguide.com

For The Environment Report, I’m Samara Freemark.

Related Links

Companies for the Climate Bill

  • A big shift away from fossil fuels isn’t scaring off everybody. Some businesses are actually lobbying for climate change legislation. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

As Congress begins debate on climate
change legislation, American businesses
are watching very closely. Some are
worried that a new law could bankrupt
them with energy costs. But others
see a bright future under carbon limits.
Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

As Congress begins debate on climate
change legislation, American businesses
are watching very closely. Some are
worried that a new law could bankrupt
them with energy costs. But others
see a bright future under carbon limits.
Julie Grant reports:

Jeff Holmstead is an environmental attorney and has been working on clean air issues for two decades now. He led the Air Division of the Environmental Protection Agency under the Bush Administration and has worked on some of the most significant environmental regulations in the nation’s history. But he says the current climate change bill is the biggest thing he’s seen.

“It’s a big deal. Much bigger than really any other environmental legislation or regulation than people have had to deal with in the past.”

Holmstead says the stakes are just so high. He says the costs could reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars for American businesses.

“And there’s just also enormous amounts of uncertainty as to how we would fundamentally change our society, which has really grown up largely using fossil fuels. Whether we can truly switch away from that in the kind of time frame that people are talking about.”

But a big shift away from fossil fuels isn’t scaring off everybody. Some businesses are actually lobbying for climate change legislation.

Commercial: “Climate change is real. But solving it is a real opportunity. If we build clean energy technologies in America, we’ll generate the jobs that will power the 21st century and jumpstart our economy. We need a can-do plan that caps greenhouse gas pollution and creates jobs here at home.”

This commercial is not made by a bunch of tree-huggers, liberals, or Al Gore. It stars the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce, and corporate CEOs from Deere and Company and the Eaton Corporation. Eaton makes everything from circuit breakers to hoses to hybrid trucks.

“Yeah, Eaton is a power management company that sales about
15-billion dollars and 70,000 employees worldwide.”

That’s Joe Wolfsberger. He’s in charge of environmental programs at Eaton. The company wants Congress to approve climate change legislation and to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Wolfsberger says it could be a great kick-start for the economy and help create jobs.

“We also see a very big opportunity for Eaton and other companies, especially in this power management area. We’ll be able to provide solutions for people to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions going forward, to help reduce the amount of fuel they consume on the road as part of their operations.”

The company has already created new hybrid transmissions for delivery trucks. They’re used in lots of UPS, Fed-Ex, and Wal-Mart trucks. Wolfsberger says it improves gas mileage 50% to 70%.

Wolfsberger says a lot of companies are still questioning whether climate change is real. He says Eaton CEO Alexander Cutler gets asked about it a lot.

“And his response to them is, ‘it doesn’t really matter if the data is good or not. It doesn’t matter if it’s a normal climatic cycle. The question is, if you as a company can do better, you should do better.’”

But that may be easy to say when your company will benefit from climate change legislation. It’s a lot tougher when your business is producing natural gas or making steel and depends on heavy use of fossil fuels.

Environmental attorney Jeff Holmstead says the price of reducing greenhouse gases is going to be a lot higher for these types of companies if a bill passes. He says that’s what the debate is all about.

“Should we be spending a hundred billion dollars a year, should we be spending a trillion dollars a year? I think most people believe we could significantly reduce our CO2 emissions, it’s just a question of how much we’re willing to pay, and also what we get for that.”

And this what Congress will be debating in the coming months – whether the possibility of higher energy bills is worth the chance to have a more stable climate and more energy independence.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Interview: Doctors Call for Cleaner Coal

  • Dr. Alan Lockwood is a Professor of Neurology and Nuclear Medicine, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY (Photo courtesy of the Physicians for Social Responsibility)

A group of doctors, Physicians for
Social Responsibility, has issued a
new report called “Coal’s Assault On
Human Health.” It explains the
health impacts of burning coal, but
it goes beyond that. Lester Graham
caught up with the principle author
of the report – Dr. Alan Lockwood.
Lockwood is a professor of neurology
and nuclear medicine at the University
of Buffalo. He says their report also
looked at the possible health effects
of climate change:

Transcript

A group of doctors, Physicians for
Social Responsibility, has issued a
new report called “Coal’s Assault On
Human Health.” It explains the
health impacts of burning coal, but
it goes beyond that. Lester Graham
caught up with the principle author
of the report – Dr. Alan Lockwood.
Lockwood is a professor of neurology
and nuclear medicine at the University
of Buffalo. He says their report also
looked at the possible health effects
of climate change:

Dr. Alan Lockwood: Well, first of all, it would change the temperature. So, more people would have heat-related illnesses. Insect vectors that carry malaria and dengue will increase their distribution. The possibility of reduced crop yields and, secondarily, is starvation. And then, of course, there’ll be the increase in sea level, which will inundate many countries that have low-lying areas – such as Bangladesh and some other countries in the Pacific – will be totally under water. So, all of those things add up to making this an important element of the coal story.

Lester Graham: It’s often noted that the public health costs of power from burning coal is never really calculated into the overall cost of the energy – this report tackles that. And you use that to justify some of the recommendations – including no new coal-burning power plants, cutting other pollutants from existing plants. Realistically, do you think anyone is really going to go for that?

Dr. Lockwood: Well, unless you set the bar at the appropriate level, you’re never going to achieve the outcome that would be optimum. So, our position is that this is the target we’d like to see, and then we will work with people and do our educational mission in order to get as close to that target as is possible.

Graham: How do you expect this will affect the debate over the climate change bill in the Senate?

Dr. Lockwood: Physicians, according to polling information, have very high credibility. So we are a different voice that brings this argument to the floor. And, hopefully we’ll be a component of the legislative process and the input of information that comes to legislators as they grapple with tough decisions.

Graham: You’re talking about further reducing some of the pollutants caused by coal. But the EPA, in all of the government’s wisdom, has decided, ‘well, we are at a level where these exposures are safe to the public.’ Why do you dispute that?

Dr. Lockwood: No one has been able to demonstrate a level below which these pollutants are really completely safe. So, the general consensus is, that the lower they are, the less likely they are to effect health in an adverse manner – producing things like attacks of asthma, myocardial infarcts, strokes, things of that nature.

Graham: There’s a huge campaign going on right now by the coal industry touting the benefits of clean coal. I wonder if you think there is the possibility of clean coal, now or in the future, or if we have to find alternatives to coal altogether.

Dr. Lockwood: Well, we advocate alternatives to coal. The coal industry, first of all, is extremely well-financed. They’re working very hard to convince people that it’s possible to use coal in a manner that’s clean and doesn’t pollute the environment. But that’s a concept that’s more in the future – if it ever proves to be practical.

Graham: Sounds like you’re a clean coal skeptic.

Dr. Lockwood: I’m from Missouri.

Graham: The Show Me State!

Dr. Lockwood: Well, I’m a clinical neurologist and I’m a scientist. So I want to see proof and data rather than ‘pie in the sky’ claims.

Graham: Dr. Alan Lockwood is the principal author of the just released report ‘Coal’s Assault On Human Health’ from the Physicians For Social Responsibility. Thanks very much for talking time to talk with us.

Dr. Lockwood: Thank you for having me.

Related Links

Entrepreneurs for Sustainability

  • E4S offers parties, workshops, and tours so business owners can take a look at how things like solar energy is being used by other companies. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

Lots of businesses want to become more
energy efficient and reduce waste to
save money. And many want to go further
to become more environmentally-friendly.
But they’re not sure how to do it. Julie
Grant reports about groups working to help
businesses move toward sustainability:

Transcript

Lots of businesses want to become more
energy efficient and reduce waste to
save money. And many want to go further
to become more environmentally-friendly.
But they’re not sure how to do it. Julie
Grant reports about groups working to help
businesses move toward sustainability:

(sound of a party)

This party is full of business owners, union leaders, MBA students, and lots of other folks interested in figuring how to run successful companies that aren’t bad for the environment. Holly Harlan has been hosting these kinds of gatherings for nearly a decade. She has literally made it her job to assist companies move toward sustainability. She started this group, Entrepreneurs for Sustainability – known as E4S – back in 2000.

When she started out, it was nearly all start-up companies. Now it’s more established firms. She wants me to meet Christopher Moody.

Harlan: “Well, Chris works for a larger company. He’s on the green council at Keybank.”

Moody: “Sure.”

Harlan: “And so, they’re getting started on their sustainability journey. And he was just sharing with me what they’re first steps were.”

Moody: “Our first steps are to begin to understand what it is what we’re currently doing. Where are we now? And, next step is, how can we improve on it? I think that’s where it all begins.”

Harlan: “Really, doing a baseline, understanding what you’re doing now that’s already moving in this direction. Celebrating those successes and finding the next steps.”

When Harlan first started E4S, most of the companies she heard from then were starting to offer green products and services – green cleaning, green lawn care, and solar panels.

“Whereas, companies like GE and Wal-Mart, certainly this wasn’t on their radar in 2000. But around 2006, then we started hearing more about existing businesses that wanted to change.”

Harlan says E4S wanted find ways to assist those already established companies to make changes.

E4S parties aren’t just for networking. They have an informational component. This one is focused on solar panel installations for businesses. Harlan is trying to give business leaders more information about whether it’s a good energy strategy for their factories, banks and start-up companies.

“And when is it right to invest? Is the technology ready? Are the costs, you know, what is the support I can get to implement these. To understand the opportunity in solar. And providing people the opportunity, I say, kick the tires and really figure out is this worth something for my business to invest in?”

After an initial information party like this, E4S will offer workshops – and tours – so business owners can take a look at how solar energy is being used by other companies – to give them a real on-the-ground understanding. Then Harlan’s group goes one step further – and helps those that are interested connect with solar installers.

Sustainable business groups like E4S have been forming in cities around the country in recent years.

Jeff Krejci is with Interface Carpet Company – which has been working toward becoming a green business for many years. He says the business community needs independent groups like Entrepreneurs for Sustainability.

“And it’s interesting. Everybody’s reading it. You hear it. It’s on every billboard. But people really want to know – what does sustainability mean? And there’s really not a whole lot of places you can turn to. You can go online. Go on websites. But still, it’s everybody trying to promote their own product.”

The sustainability groups want businesses to see that they can reduce their costs – while doing better for the environment and society.

Before she started E4S, Holly Harlan worked in industrial engineering and economic development. But once she heard about companies designing their processes more efficiently, more sustainably – her own light turned on.

“I suddenly saw opportunities everywhere; everyplace that I visited. From museums, hotels, restaurants, manufacturing companies. Places to save money and places to make money. Because I saw the world differently.”

Now Harlan is trying to get more people to see through these new glasses. To provide a better quality of life in the future – and make good economic decisions today.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Part 5: The Science Behind Dioxin Delays

  • West Michigan Park lies along the Tittabawassee River. Large swaths of its soil was removed and re-sodded due to dioxin contamination. The removal was part of a US EPA effort to have Dow clean up several hot spots in the rivershed. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

Two rivers in central Michigan were
polluted with dioxin 30 years ago.
The dioxin came from a Dow chemical
plant. The toxin’s been found in fish,
animals, and dirt, but, of all those,
contaminated soil might be the touchiest
subject. A study done in the area suggests
dioxin in soil might not be getting into
people living there. In the final part
of a series on Dow Chemical and dioxin,
Shawn Allee looks at that study
and the government’s take on it:

Transcript

Two rivers in central Michigan were
polluted with dioxin 30 years ago.
The dioxin came from a Dow chemical
plant. The toxin’s been found in fish,
animals, and dirt, but, of all those,
contaminated soil might be the touchiest
subject. A study done in the area suggests
dioxin in soil might not be getting into
people living there. In the final part
of a series on Dow Chemical and dioxin,
Shawn Allee looks at that study
and the government’s take on it:

To understand what’s at stake over the science of dioxin and soil, I want to talk with Marcia Woodman.

So, Woodman and I talk in this big, three-season room with tons of windows. It’s like you’re outside in some woods.

“I love it, so it wasn’t hard to convince me to move here.”

From here, the trees look inviting, but Woodman says she only lets her kids enjoy them from a distance.

“They’re not allowed to play back in the woods anymore. They used to play and we used to take walks back there.”

You see, eight years ago, the state tested soil for dioxin. Her place was okay, but there were high levels in the neighborhood. So, Woodman worried dioxin might move from soil into her kids, and maybe they’d get cancer or some other disease. But, what if dioxin in soil is not getting into people nearby?

“We found virtually no relationship between soil contamination and blood dioxin levels. In other words, the amount of soil contamination on your property really didn’t relate to blood levels.”

This is Dr. David Garabrant. He researches public health at the University of Michigan. Now, we need to tell you, in the interest of full disclosure, The Environment Report is produced at the University of Michigan.

Dr. Garabrant looked at whether people in the contaminated region have higher dioxin levels in their blood. They do – but just slightly. And those higher dioxins levels? They’re probably from other factors, like living in that area when dioxin pollution was highest – decades ago. Again, for him, soil is less of an issue.

This conclusion bothers two groups of people that really matter. That would be the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the State of Michigan. The EPA would not provide an interview on this, but they have public documents about it. Michigan has the same reservations about the study. Here’s just one.

“He didn’t test children. And children, typically, have some of the highest exposures.”

This is Steve Chester. He heads Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality.

“It’s probably even more of a concern for children who get down into the dirt and get it on their hands and shoes and so forth.”

Chester says the state needs to create regulations that take risk to kids into account. That makes Dr. Garabrant’s study a bit beside the point. Dr. Garabrant says he wanted to get kids into his study, but you have to draw lots of blood.

“You can’t ethically take enough blood from a child to find the dioxins. And that’s a real dilemma.”

Garabrant says his study went as far as it could.

For some people, there’s a different problem with the research.

“The study is funded by the Dow Chemical company through an unrestricted grant to the University of Michigan.”

That would be Dow Chemical – the company that polluted the Tittabawassee River and floodplain decades ago. Soon, Dow might have to spend tens or maybe hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up contaminated river silt and soil. Still, Garabrant insists Dow has no influence.

“The only thing we give Dow is when they sit in meetings like the rest of the public and they hear what we have to say.”

Garabrant’s study on dioxin exposure is getting attention right when the US EPA is taking another look at the risk dioxin poses to people. Critics of his study worry it will stir up a whole new debate that could delay dioxin clean ups in Michigan and other toxic waste sites across the country.

The EPA insists it won’t let that happen – and it’ll soon have more science to back up its position.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Part 4: Hunters Warned After Dioxin Delays

  • Fish advisories dot the banks of the Tittabawassee and Saginaw Rivers. Various forms or pollution, including historical dioxin pollution from Dow Chemical, have led to warnings to avoid certain species of fish and limit consumption for them. Pregnant woment and young children are given more stringent warnings. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

It’s deer season in Michigan, and
hunters are trekking through the woods,
trying to bag dinner or something
special for the holidays. Hunting’s
gotten a little complicated in some
areas recently. Just because you catch
something doesn’t mean you should eat
it. That’s because a stretch of river
in Michigan was polluted with dioxin –
decades ago. In the fourth part of a
series on Dow Chemical and dioxin, Shawn
Allee found the state thinks
old dioxin pollution from a Dow chemical
plant poses a health risk today:

Transcript

It’s deer season in Michigan, and
hunters are trekking through the woods,
trying to bag dinner or something
special for the holidays. Hunting’s
gotten a little complicated in some
areas recently. Just because you catch
something doesn’t mean you should eat
it. That’s because a stretch of river
in Michigan was polluted with dioxin –
decades ago. In the fourth part of a
series on Dow Chemical and dioxin, Shawn
Allee found the state thinks
old dioxin pollution from a Dow chemical
plant poses a health risk today:

It was hard for me to understand why wild game like deer or turkey might be contaminated from river pollution, so I hit up Daniel O’Brien for some answers. O’Brien’s a toxicologist with Michigan’s Department of Natural Resources. He says the problem starts with dioxin in the river.

“It’s in the sediments in these contaminated parts of the Tittabawassee River, and after flood events in the spring when, say, mud in the river gets deposited onto bushes or whatever and deer browse those, then they pick up soil that way.”

Part of O’Brien’s job is to spread the news about the contamination. He says when you buy a hunting license in Michigan you get this brochure.

“It’s a booklet that has all the regulations for hunting and trapping in it.”

These wildlife consumption advisories are voluntary but they kinda read like owners manuals. They lay out where the dioxin-contaminated animals are. They tell you what animals you can eat, and what parts. For example, no one’s supposed to eat deer liver from the areas – that’s got the most dioxin in it. And, of cuts you can eat, the advisory says how much, and how often. Plus, they tell who should eat less or maybe none at all.

“Kids might be more sensitive. They might have a more stringent advisory than somebody like me who’s kinda your middle-aged man and we might not be as susceptible to toxic effects.”


The idea’s to protect people from dioxin, and the risk it poses for cancer and diseases of the immune, reproductive, and developmental systems. It’s an important job, given how big hunting is in Michigan.

“We have three quarters of a million hunters every year that go afield and harvest half a million white-tailed deer.”

Michigan scientists take the issue seriously, but I’m kinda curious whether hunters do. So, I visit the Saginaw Field and Stream Club. Inside, there’s this paneled wall with faded pictures of club presidents. It stretches from the club’s founding in 1916 – all the way to this guy, current President Tom Heritier.

“We’re still here today.”

Heritier says his club’s smack-dab in the contaminated area and everyone knows about the advisories, but, well …

“With the game advisories, I have not heard one person who has any problem with the deer or the birds around the watershed.”

This goes for him, too.

“Nobody is sick from it. I don’t know of anybody that has died of exposure. That’s never been proven. It’s nothing to take lightly, but then again, it might be a little bit on the overblown side, too.”

The State of Michigan tried to survey hunters like Heritier. Officials wanted to know if hunters were feeding tainted game to young children. That survey never made the budget.

Before I leave the hunting club, Heritier wants to clear something up. He’s actually mad about dioxin. It’s in the environment – he wants it gone.

Heritier: “There’s absolutely no reason for industry to be polluting our natural resources, whether it be air, soil, or water.”

Allee: “Even if it’s not a slam-dunk, for sure, killing people off sort of thing?”

Heritier: “Number one, God didn’t put it there, it don’t belong there. That’s the way it is.”

Well, Heritier wants the environment protected from dioxin, but not necessarily himself.

State scientists say, if Heritier changes his mind and wants to reduce his health risk – they’ll keep printing those game advisories for him.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Part 3: Living With Dioxin Delays

  • Mitch Larson lives in Saginaw's Riverside neighborhood, which saw a large dioxin removal project last year. His home is on the banks of Tittabawassee River. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

Several communities in central Michigan
are polluted by dioxins from a Dow Chemical
plant. People there have known about
it for thirty years. But, residents
are divided over whether the government
should force Dow to pay for a cleanup
that could cost tens, or even hundreds,
of millions of dollars. In the third
part of a series on Dow and dioxin,
Shawn Allee traveled to the
area and talked with some of them:

Transcript

Several communities in central Michigan
are polluted by dioxins from a Dow Chemical
plant. People there have known about
it for thirty years. But, residents
are divided over whether the government
should force Dow to pay for a cleanup
that could cost tens, or even hundreds,
of millions of dollars. In the third
part of a series on Dow and dioxin,
Shawn Allee traveled to the
area and talked with some of them:

Dow Chemical is not just some company in Midland, Michigan. It’s part of life there.
Dow employs thousands of people. It pays for libraries and civic gardens. A high school football team is even named “The Chemix.”

I talked with plenty of people who’ve sided with Dow over the dioxin pollution issue. One works right across the street from the chemical plant.

“We’re in my law office and my house is two blocks south of us here.”

Bob McKellar says Dow’s been good for Midland, and, as far as he’s concerned, the federal government’s been trashing the town.

McKellar: “Dow, rightfully so, takes the position that, you know, ‘why are you always picking on us? We agree we’ve done some of this and we agree we’ll help clean it up.’ But then the EPA comes back and says, ‘well, you’re not doing enough.'”

Allee: “But the EPA says they’ve been dealing with the issue for 30 years.”

McKellar: “It’s because the EPA’s had the fist out – they haven’t come with a little bouquet of flowers and say, ‘okay folks, let’s sit down and talk about this and let’s get this thing done right.’”

McKellar says, getting things done right means the government should pay for a big hunk of any dioxin cleanup. It’s only fair – because he thinks pollution in the river and soil is overblown, and the EPA’s the one overblowing it.

Downstream, fewer people work at the Dow plant. They see less benefit, but they live with more dioxin pollution.

“Well, This is the Tittabawassee River. This is my homestead.”

I’m with Mitch Larson. He lives 20 miles downstream from Midland. His home’s in a woodsy part of Saginaw.

“When I bought this place, I was thinking that this would be a great place for kids to grow up. As they grew up, it was a right of passage to swim across the river. You know, I’d swim alongside them, you’d swim across to the other bank, and you’d have them sign their name in the sand, you know, you did it.”

The Tittabawassee River floods, and it left silt and traces of dioxin on Larson’s yard, but he didn’t know that until the state government tested his soil and found the dioxin.

They even tested his pet chickens and the eggs he fed his kids.

Larson: “They tested those also.”

Allee: “What did they tell you?”

Larson: “Don’t eat them. Chickens eat the dirt. The dirt was where the dioxin was, and eggs were full of dioxin. So, for the past couple years, every egg we ate was like a little shot of dioxin.”

He got rid of the chickens, of course, but he had to have a talk with his teenage girls. A report said the dioxin put them at risk for having kids with birth defects.

“You know, when they were all tested for the dioxin, I told them they were all high in dioxin and I had information about, you know, about the child-bearing thing. It put them at risk for having kids. You know, it’s not a good feeling.”

Larson and one hundred seventy two other plaintiffs sued Dow to pay for follow-up medical monitoring.

The courts said no.

Six years after dioxin was first found on the property, Dow chemical paid to clean and re-sod Larson’s lawn. He says it looks great, but he worries another flood’s gonna leave behind dioxin.

Right now, Dow and the EPA are negotiating an agreement that might make Dow clean up river sediment.

“If it takes them thirty years to clean this river up so it’s clean for the next 200 years, it’d be worth it. People are fishing, kids are swimming across the river to show, you know, they’re a bad-ass.”

Larson says he’d welcome that future – even if it cost Dow a lot of money.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Part 2: Foot Dragging Produces Dioxin Delays

  • The southeast corner of the Dow Chemical plant, from the vantage of Midland's Whiting Overlook Park, which features an homage to and history of the company and its founder. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

The State of Michigan, the US
Environmental Protection Agency
and Dow Chemical are negotiating
an agreement to clean up dioxin
pollution in towns, two rivers,
and Lake Huron. The pollution
is largely from a Dow chemical
plant in Midland, Michigan. The
government worries the pollution
poses a risk of cancer and other
health problems, and it’s been
found in fish, on property, and
in the blood of some people there.
Residents are asking why it’s taken
so long to get cleaned up. In the
second part of a series on Dow and
dioxin, Shawn Allee went
looking for an answer:

Transcript

The State of Michigan, the US
Environmental Protection Agency
and Dow Chemical are negotiating
an agreement to clean up dioxin
pollution in towns, two rivers,
and Lake Huron. The pollution
is largely from a Dow chemical
plant in Midland, Michigan. The
government worries the pollution
poses a risk of cancer and other
health problems, and it’s been
found in fish, on property, and
in the blood of some people there.
Residents are asking why it’s taken
so long to get cleaned up. In the
second part of a series on Dow and
dioxin, Shawn Allee went
looking for an answer:

If you want to see an environmentalist kinda lose his cool – talk to James Clift of the Michigan Environmental Council.

And bring up dioxin pollution.

Clift: “Um, it’s … people are think, frustrated. It is my entire career of working environmental protection in Michigan, this has been an issue. I’ve been doing this for over twenty years, and from day one I’ve been sitting on meetings about this site.”

Allee: “You’d rather work on something else? Birds or something?”

Clift: “I’d rather work on something else.”

Clift is frustrated with people who could have wrapped this up.

“I believe that each administration at both the state and federal level is culpable in failing to move this forward.”

When I talked to federal and state officials about this, they did some serious finger-pointing.

Let’s start with Steve Chester. He heads Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality. Chester says when people first learned about the dioxin problem at Dow’s chemical plant, the federal government was the lead regulator.

That changed.

“The federal government wanted to transition and hand the project off to the state of Michigan and we were in fact given this corrective action authority in the mid-nineties, and so there was a period of time quite frankly, the agencies didn’t take advantage of moving a little bit quicker.”

Actually, it took Michigan almost ten years to re-license the Dow chemical plant. That meant the state was slow to find out exactly where old dioxin pollution was in the river system, so some people didn’t know there was dioxin in their yards until the past few years. That’s decades after dioxins got into local rivers.

But what about the US Environmental Protection Agency?

Several former officials said the polluter, Dow, slowed things down.

One of these who would go on the record is Mary Gade. She led the EPA office that regulated Dow. Now, in the past we’ve reported Gade said she was fired by the Bush Administration because she got tough with Dow.

The EPA wouldn’t comment on that.

But even today, Gade says Dow slowed down the clean-up.


“I think this corporation is hugely adept at playing the system and understanding how to build in delays and use the bureaucracy to their advantage and to use the political system to their advantage.”

A confidential memo leaked from the EPA says when Dow didn’t like what Michigan’s technical staff had to say, they’d go higher up and try to get rules changed.

For a month, I requested comment from Dow. A spokeswoman said the company is interested in talking about the future, not the past.

People who’ve watched this say, there’s been plenty of foot-dragging.

But why should this dioxin cleanup even matter to people who don’t live there? It’s Michigan’s problem, right?

Well, James Clift, that environmentalist, says, no, there’s a long list of toxic waste sites across the country. And Clift worries the government gets bogged down with big, slow cleanups.

“If they’re not even getting to the big ones which are known to everyone as known as causing widespread problems, that means they’re not getting to the medium sized ones and they’re not getting to the small ones.”

But there seems to be some progress. Recently, the EPA, the State of Michigan, and Dow came to a tentative agreement about cleaning up the dioxin pollution.

That means there’s at least one more delay, that would be public comment until mid-December.

That’s one delay many people don’t mind.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Part 1: A Long History of Dioxin Delays

  • In 1981, Valdus Adamkus was appointed to a regional Environmental Protection Agency office. One of his jobs jobs was to study dioxin pollution that got into the Great Lakes. His office compiled a report that said dioxin is a cancer risk, and that a Dow Chemical plant in Michigan was responsible for some dioxin pollution. (Photo source: Dantadd at Wikimedia Commons)

Dioxin pollution has been present in a
watershed in central Michigan for more
than thirty years. People around the
country might think it’s just a local
issue, but there was a time when this
very same pollution problem made national
news. In the first part of a series
on Dow and dioxin, Shawn Allee met the man who took the issue to Congress
and who feels it should make news again:

Transcript

Dioxin pollution has been present in a
watershed in central Michigan for more
than thirty years. People around the
country might think it’s just a local
issue, but there was a time when this
very same pollution problem made national
news. In the first part of a series
on Dow and dioxin, Shawn Allee met the man who took the issue to Congress
and who feels it should make news again:

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan appointed Valdus Adamkus to a regional Environmental Protection Agency office. From the get-go, one of Adamkus’ jobs was to study dioxin pollution that got into the Great Lakes. His office compiled this report that said dioxin is a cancer risk, and that a Dow Chemical plant in Michigan was responsible for some dioxin pollution.

Adamkus says his bosses in Washington called this report “trash.”

Adamkus: “We simply refused to retreat from our findings.”

Allee: “Did they ask you to retreat from your findings?”

Adamkus: “Yes, unfortunately we almost got instructions, let’s use a very mild word, to change our report. And that brought us Congressional hearings, which probably the entire country was watching on TV networks.”

Koeppel (ABC Archive ): “An official at the EPA today said the Dow chemical company was allowed to participate in the redrafting of a report on dioxin contamination that had been critical of Dow. And that official charged that Dow’s involvement was at the direction of the EPA’s acting chief.”

That was March 18, 1983, and ABC’s Ted Koeppel wasn’t the only one covering the Congressional hearings.

All the TV outlets caught this line from Adamkus –

Adamkus ( ABC Archive ): “It’s unethical, unusual, unprofessional to get the internal document approved by outside company.”

So, higher-ups in the EPA allowed Dow to edit the report critical of the company. But, in some ways, Adamkus won. His boss got ousted and Ronald Reagan gave Adamkus a civil service award for integrity.

As for Dow Chemical’s involvement?

For a month, I asked for comment.

A Dow spokeswoman said the company was interested in talking about the future, not the past.

Adamkus eventually left the EPA and he became President of Lithuania. But back in the US, there was a surprising follow-up to his fight over dioxin.

Mary Gade was a young staff attorney back when Adamkus was on TV. Twenty-three years later, President George W. Bush appointed her to Adamkus’ old job. When Gade arrived – dioxin was still a problem in Michigan.

“My staff in the region characterized this as probably the worst dioxin contamination in the country.”

And, she saw it as a national issue.

“You’d like to expect that your government will function appropriately, that corporations will act responsibly and that you can be assured of a safe and healthy environment for you and your family.”

So, Gade ordered Dow Chemical to clean up some hot spots.

“They would either do the work themselves or the federal government would go forward and do it on their own, and then go back and sue Dow to cover our costs.”

Michigan politicians complained about Gade, and some state officials felt some of her actions were counterproductive. In May 2008, she was forced to resign.

Gade told the Chicago Tribune, it was for being tough on Dow.

The EPA hasn’t commented on that, and Dow denies any involvement.

Recently, Mary Gade’s old boss, Valdus Adamkus, returned to his old EPA office to say hello. He asked about the dioxin problem in Michigan, and he learned it’s still around – after all these years, and after all the trouble he and Mary Gade got from it.

“When I hear from them what enforcement actions are being still considered, and that they are not big progress in that respect, that’s what really bothers me and to me this is inexcusable.”

Dow and the EPA are negotiating a final resolution on cleanup right now.

But Valdus Adamkus knows details need to be worked out, and he says all of this has been promised before.

“God help them. I hope this is really coming to the end.”

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Preview: The Trail of Dioxin and Dow

  • A Dow Chemical sign on the Tittabawassee River stating 'Enter At Your Own Risk' (Photo by Vincent Duffy)

If you learned your town was polluted
with toxic waste, you’d just want to
get it cleaned up. That’s not how things
have worked out with dioxin contamination
in central Michigan. Dioxin’s been a problem
for at least 30 years, but the Dow Chemical
Company, the federal government, and
the state of Michigan are just now hashing
out final cleanup plans. We had Shawn
Allee tour the area to see the
extent of the problem and what’s at stake
for the rest of us:

Transcript

If you learned your town was polluted
with toxic waste, you’d just want to
get it cleaned up. That’s not how things
have worked out with dioxin contamination
in central Michigan. Dioxin’s been a problem
for at least 30 years, but the Dow Chemical
Company, the federal government, and
the state of Michigan are just now hashing
out final cleanup plans. We had Shawn
Allee tour the area to see the
extent of the problem and what’s at stake
for the rest of us:

I wanted to begin my tour with interviews at Dow’s chemical plant in Midland. That’s where dioxin and related compounds were created: the dioxins were by-products of chemical manufacturing.

After a month of calls and emails to Dow, a spokeswoman said the company was interested in talking about the future – not the past. But the past is the reason there’s a problem now.

So, I start my tour a bit downstream.

Michelle Hurd Riddick picks me up near the plant. She’s with The Lone Tree Council, a Michigan environmental group. We follow the Tittabawassee River and the path dioxins took over time.

“This is Freeland Festival Park. Freeland is kind of like a bedroom community of Midland.“

Hurd Riddick says fishing is a huge past time in Michigan – but dioxin’s made it complicated.

Allee: “There’s a fish-advisory sign right there.“

Riddick: “Right. So, they’re telling you to not eat the fish.“

Actually, the signs tell you which fish to avoid, and how much to eat, or not. The US Environmental Protection agency worries dioxin causes cancer and diseases that affect immune, reproductive, and developmental systems.

“Pregnant women shouldn’t eat any, children under a certain age should only eat it once a month.“

Fish advisories cropped up in 1978. That’s after Dow warned Michigan and the federal government about dioxin in the Tittabawassee River. While the plant’s dioxin pollution is well below federal limits, the old dioxins are still around, and they’re not just in the river.

Allee: “Where we coming up here?“

Riddick: “This is Imerman Park, it’s on the Tittabawassee, too, and it’s very frequently flooded.“

Flood waters leave behind contaminated silt. Dioxin’s been found in the soil of yards and in parks like this. One worry is that kids would get exposed by getting dirt in their mouths.

Riddick: “Those are the hand washing sinks. They put the sinks there to use the hand-washing sink to wash their hands as a way to mitigate their exposure.“

Allee: “There’s the sign – contamination advisory: avoid contact with soil and river sediment. Please use soap and water to wash off soil and sediment.“

Other parks and some yards had soil scraped and removed. Dow cleaned up several dioxin hot-spots in recent years. Michigan and the US EPA want more of a top-to-bottom effort. That might include a sweep of fifty miles of river and part of the Great Lakes.

Riddick: “This is the Saginaw Bay of Lake Huron. As a child, I came up here a lot. I’m sure someplace I have a picture of me near these trees.“

Riddick’s middle-aged now. The dioxin was in rivers and Lake Huron before she was born. No one knew that far back. But residents did learn about the problem thirty years ago. Today Dow, the US EPA and Michigan are still debating a final solution.

“We’ve had many, many starts. If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone say this is how we’re going to achieve this cleanup, I’d be a wealthy woman.“

Hurd Riddick says the whole country should care about how this plays out.

Riddick: “People need to care about how this process because could play out in your community.“

Allee: “Maybe not dioxin but something else?“

Riddick: “You want to know that that the people your tax dollars are paying to protect you are the ones calling the shots.“

A final dioxin-clean up could take more than ten years. Michelle Hurd Riddick says she can wait that long – if it’s done right.

But she says it wouldn’t hurt if the clean-up got started now.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links