THE AUSTRALIAN ROYAL COMMISSION STORY
Some of our earlier studies in this field (6-8, 24, 25) attracted interest in certain
judicial controversies in the United States and Canada, and in. connection with
the work by the Royal Commission in Australia, and we were cross-examined as
expert witnesses. The Commission's conclusions appeared in 1985 (3), but
Volume 4 of the Final Report on cancer effects was dominated by manipulated
data and misinterpretations of published findings-at least regarding our studies (3,
Vol. 4, pp. VIII: 90-180).
After scrutinizing this part of the Commission's report we found (35-38) that the
section was almost entirely a verbatim reproduction of a submission to the Royal
Commission by Monsanto Australia Ltd, one of the main producers of
chlorinated phenols and phenoxyacetic acids (39). It seems that the Commission
was either unable or unwilling to consider existing scientific material. Instead it
relied on the distorted interpretations of the chemical company, although not
acknowledging the source as being the Monsanto submission.
We present here some of the worst examples of distortions and misinterpretations
in the Monsanto submission and thus in the Final Report of the Royal
Commission. (All page numbers refer to Volume 4 of the report (3).) On page
VIII: 122, the Commission (or actually Monsanto) presents a most curious
manipulation of published figures (24, 25). For example, regarding one of the
studies (25), three cases of malignancies occurring in 1973-1978 and described
in an updating report on herbicide-spraying railroad workers are compared with
an expected number of cases in an earlier report relating to the years 1957-1972
(24). This false comparison results in a total distortion of the resulting conclusions
on risk.
On pages VIU: 148-150, exposure to phenoxyacetic acids is discussed with
respect to our first soft-tissue sarcoma study (6). Reanalysing the data of this
study using methods of its own, the Commission applied different latency periods
for cases and controls. Thus, exposure within 10 years before the diagnosis was
excluded for the cases, but only the last 5 years for the controls. In fact, we used
a minimum latency time for exposure of 5 years for both cases and controls, as
presented in our articles. Other exposure criteria for the cases were also wrongly
changed by the Commission, as we have shown elsewhere (35). Except for a few
words, this section of the Commission's report was copied verbatim from pages
205-207 of the Monsanto submission (39).
Similarly, on pages VIII: 169-175, Tables VIII and IX, the question of possible
interviewer bias is seriously mistreated by the Commission (as per pp. 227-231
of the Monsanto submission; the same two tables were on pp. 228 and 232) (39).
We explored these and other circumstances in detail in our rebuttals submitted to
the Governor General of Australia (and later put together as an institutional
report) (35).
It could certainly have been appropriate to cite parts of the Monsanto submission
in the Final Report, but the source should have been referred to. Also the
Monsanto statements should have been evaluated, especially their conclusions. In
fact, we have not found any pertinent conclusions about our studies that were
made by the Commission itself (3, Vol. 4).
In response to our rebuttals of the Royal Commission's report as sent to the
Governor General of Australia, the Department of Veterans' Affairs in Australia
admitted that the Commission erred on several crucial points, such as their
manipulation of the exposure data of cases so as to bias the observed risk toward
unity (4). And regarding the Commission's manipulations of our published data to
demonstrate interviewer bias (35), the Department conceded that "Dr Hardell's
complaint is justified. . . . The analysis given in the Report is not correct" (4).
Many other points were also corrected.
Some of our earlier studies in this field (6-8, 24, 25) attracted interest in certain
judicial controversies in the United States and Canada, and in. connection with
the work by the Royal Commission in Australia, and we were cross-examined as
expert witnesses. The Commission's conclusions appeared in 1985 (3), but
Volume 4 of the Final Report on cancer effects was dominated by manipulated
data and misinterpretations of published findings-at least regarding our studies (3,
Vol. 4, pp. VIII: 90-180).
After scrutinizing this part of the Commission's report we found (35-38) that the
section was almost entirely a verbatim reproduction of a submission to the Royal
Commission by Monsanto Australia Ltd, one of the main producers of
chlorinated phenols and phenoxyacetic acids (39). It seems that the Commission
was either unable or unwilling to consider existing scientific material. Instead it
relied on the distorted interpretations of the chemical company, although not
acknowledging the source as being the Monsanto submission.
We present here some of the worst examples of distortions and misinterpretations
in the Monsanto submission and thus in the Final Report of the Royal
Commission. (All page numbers refer to Volume 4 of the report (3).) On page
VIII: 122, the Commission (or actually Monsanto) presents a most curious
manipulation of published figures (24, 25). For example, regarding one of the
studies (25), three cases of malignancies occurring in 1973-1978 and described
in an updating report on herbicide-spraying railroad workers are compared with
an expected number of cases in an earlier report relating to the years 1957-1972
(24). This false comparison results in a total distortion of the resulting conclusions
on risk.
On pages VIU: 148-150, exposure to phenoxyacetic acids is discussed with
respect to our first soft-tissue sarcoma study (6). Reanalysing the data of this
study using methods of its own, the Commission applied different latency periods
for cases and controls. Thus, exposure within 10 years before the diagnosis was
excluded for the cases, but only the last 5 years for the controls. In fact, we used
a minimum latency time for exposure of 5 years for both cases and controls, as
presented in our articles. Other exposure criteria for the cases were also wrongly
changed by the Commission, as we have shown elsewhere (35). Except for a few
words, this section of the Commission's report was copied verbatim from pages
205-207 of the Monsanto submission (39).
Similarly, on pages VIII: 169-175, Tables VIII and IX, the question of possible
interviewer bias is seriously mistreated by the Commission (as per pp. 227-231
of the Monsanto submission; the same two tables were on pp. 228 and 232) (39).
We explored these and other circumstances in detail in our rebuttals submitted to
the Governor General of Australia (and later put together as an institutional
report) (35).
It could certainly have been appropriate to cite parts of the Monsanto submission
in the Final Report, but the source should have been referred to. Also the
Monsanto statements should have been evaluated, especially their conclusions. In
fact, we have not found any pertinent conclusions about our studies that were
made by the Commission itself (3, Vol. 4).
In response to our rebuttals of the Royal Commission's report as sent to the
Governor General of Australia, the Department of Veterans' Affairs in Australia
admitted that the Commission erred on several crucial points, such as their
manipulation of the exposure data of cases so as to bias the observed risk toward
unity (4). And regarding the Commission's manipulations of our published data to
demonstrate interviewer bias (35), the Department conceded that "Dr Hardell's
complaint is justified. . . . The analysis given in the Report is not correct" (4).
Many other points were also corrected.