List date(s) this work was published or aired.
Jun-11
Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
While the idea of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) has been reported on many times, most reporting appears in short stories in daily papers or TV news and covers only one or two recent studies about bisphenol A (BPA), the most famous EDC. These stories always include, as balanced journalism should, a rebuttal by whichever side disagrees. But the truncated explanations, and debate from both sides, lead to confusion among the general public. The goal of this story was to dig deeper; explain why EDCs can be a confusing topic, reveal that decades of animal study has linked them to health harms, but that industry–and sometimes government–uses the paucity of human data to cloud the issue. Reporter Brian Alexander also uncovered that government regulation of EDCs has been lax in the past due to antiquated laws and lobbying pressures brought to bear by industry. To our knowledge, this is also the first time a general interest magazine has covered the ubiquity of atrazine–the world’s most popular herbicide–in water and on land and its documented effects on wildlife.
Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
There were neither FOIA, nor public records act requests made. However, Alexander spent tens of hours sifting through thousands of pages of scientific panel and government hearing transcripts, dockets, lawsuit filings, and other materials. In addition, Internet resources were used to gather background information on tactics and personalities used by both opponents and proponents of regulatory reform and to match certain scientists with “science-for-hire” work funded by industry. Scores of scientific studies were obtained and mined for relevant information, sources, and data.
Explain types of human sources used.
Alexander sought and obtained comment from the major industries with skin in the EDC fight, namely the canning, pesticide, and chemical industries. He also interviewed scientists, consumers, environmental organizations, and figures involved in previous debates over environmental risks such as lead in order to gain historical context. The major interviewing coup, perhaps, was his interview with EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, who admitted that the EPA hadn’t been doing enough about EDCs, but that it was one of her top priorities going forward.
Results:
Reader response to the story was overwhelmingly positive. Reader Kelly Ann McDonald from Garden City, New York wrote to thank us for shedding light on this cloudy topic, one that had caused tension in her own family: “I have picked up tidbits of information [about EDCs] here and there, and once I became pregnant with my first child, I began buying and eating more naturally. My family [said] ‘You and your brothers and cousins were all raised on this stuff and you are all fine,’ but I try to explain that what we are eating and buying is different than 30 years ago. Plus, are we all fine? We know about the increases in [many] health issues, but just don’t have the clear link established.”
Follow-up (if any). Have you run a correction or clarification on the report or has anyone come forward to challenge its accuracy? If so, please explain.
After we completed our story about the possible negative effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, there was an important development: The American Academy of Pediatrics officially called for an overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act, saying that children and pregnant women–who are especially vulnerable to environmental toxins–are not being adequately protected by the government. We ran a short follow-up in the August 2011 issue informing readers of the development, and instructing them to contact the Environmental Protection Agency through the group’s Pollution Prevention and Toxics site if they wanted to share their opinions or get more information.
Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
Read and digest as much background as possible before conducting any interviews. When it comes to issues of government regulation, a great deal of important information that can serve as the basis for questions is often tucked deep in dockets and transcripts. It’s also helpful to realize that neither side in most of these kinds of debates is new at this. They’ve fought over environmental regulation for two generations now, and each is very good at producing smoke, partly in hopes of reporters throwing up their hands and taking the path of least resistance.