FeaTuRES 17 Agent Orange Controversy Still Brewing in New Brunswick Local scientist claims notorious herbicide’s use at CFB Gagetown far from isolated incident Dave Johnson, The Argosy (Mount Allison University) SACKVILLE, NB (CUP)—On a brief stop in Woodstock, NB in early January, Stephen Harper made a campaign promise that may prove difficult to follow through on. His whirlwind tour of the Maritimes was designed to woo voters in this traditionally Liberal region to his Tory bandwagon, and at this particular stop, Harper was compelled to make the promise that people had packed into his campaign office to hear. If elected, he said, a Tory government would support the compensation claims of those who claim to suffer from health problems due to exposure to the notorious her- bicide Agent Orange at nearby CFB Gagetown. The thousand-plus individuals who so far have filed for compensation were for the most part with Harper’s pledge. However, the pledge is aptly ambiguous, hardly out of the ordinary for a seasoned politician during an election campaign. “Our government will stand up for full compensa- tion,” Harper said, “for persons exposed to defoliant spraying during the period from 1956 to 1984.” While this may appear to potentially negate the claims of those who say they were exposed to the sub- stance while it was for decades buried underground on the base, or those who claim their suffering originates from ground contamination stemming from the spray- ing, it could potentially sound like inadvertent official support for thousands of other claims. According to Dr. R.A. Lautenschlager, who worked as a forestry ecologist for decades, the use of Agent Orange at CFB Gagetown was far from an isolated inci- dent in Canada—and, perhaps more controversially, he claims the threat of dioxin exposure at Gagetown was negligible at best. Agent Orange isa 50-50 mixture of what were two commonly used herbicides, 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. It was most infamously used during the Vietnam War, when the US military sprayed tens of millions of litres over millions of hectares of Vietnamese territory. The rea- son the herbicide—primarily manufactured by Monsanto and Dow Chemicals—was used is twofold: first, to destroy the jungle which provided cover for Vietnamese soldiers; and second, to destroy food crops in enemy territory. While the success of Agent Orange’s military appli- cation is questioned by some today, it did bring a seri- ously destructive effect. Millions of hectares of forest were destroyed, much of it old-growth rainforest, which is believed will never grow back. As well, the Vietnamese claim that since the war, tens of thousands of children born—or fetuses aborted—have been seri- ously deformed as a result of the toxic spraying. The most widely recognized problem with Agent Orange is the often excessively high levels of TCDD dioxin, a contaminant that occurred during the manu- facture of the 2,4,5-T, which is used in products from cosmetics to herbicides. Dioxin is not related to the effectiveness of the product; it merely forms during manufacturing processes that involve large amounts of heat. In the summer of 2005, Louise Elliott at CBC Radio broke the story that during the early 1960s, mili- tary testing of the new herbicide was. undertaken at CFB Gagetown. This was followed by a huge uproar, as former employees and military personnel who worked on the base during this time clamoured for information, or to come forward with information about their use of and exposure to the chemicals. Stories came out about people coming back from the test sprayings covered with blisters caused by the herbicide. To date, over 1,300 claims for compensation stem from this incident have been received by the fed- eral government. According to Lautenschager, however, the only thing unique about the goings on at CFB Gagetown was the use of Agent Orange in a military application. “These herbicides were used not only in those tests in Gagetown, but all across North America.” And the applications were broad: The same 50-50 mixture of 2,4-D. and 2,4,5-T “was used for highway right-of-way management; it was used to spray highway transmission lines; it was used in forestry—before going in to plant a new area [foresters] would spray it to “selectively kill” undesirable plant growth.” Indeed, it is claimed that one of the reasons officials at the base allowed for Agent Orange testing in the first place was that they were using the same chemical already used elsewhere to clear brush. Individuals working in forestry or highway manage- ment. likely had the most significant exposure to the chemicals among Canadians during the 1956-1984 peri- od Harper has outlined. “Folks doing that kind of work would have been exposed to much more 2,4,5-T than anyone associated with a test spraying at Gagetown,” according to Lautenschlager. In New Brunswick, a province with a huge forestry industry that employed tens of thousands of people between 1956 and 1984, the potential ramifications to “standing up” for compensation for all of those exposed would be huge. And as well, there would be a monstrous opponent. The forestry industry—especially in New Brunswick—holds enormous sway politically, and even _culturally..Prominent companies such as JD Irving Corp. are part of conglomerates that are amongst the largest employers in the province, and their ownership of every major English Language newspaper in the province makes it difficult to publicize such issues. JD Irving declines to disclose information on the herbicides they have used over the years in their forestry management program. However, for years, one of the most common was sold under the name “Brushkill,” manufactured by Dow Chemicals and its subsidiary Union Carbide, and it is “exactly the same thing” as Agent Orange, according to Lautenschlager. The extent of Brushkill’s use is thus hard to deter- mine, however, it (and other similar chemicals) was used throughout North America until 2,4,5-T was banned in | the US in 1979, and Canada in 1985. In 2001, the New Brunswick Government paid $1 million to a group of 43 former employees of NB Power, which had used Brushkill to clear brush and weeds from cutlines used to service powerlines running throughout the province. At the time, David Coon, pol- icy director for the New Brunswick Conservation Council, stated that he believed that “there is no safe level of dioxin.” It.is clear that there is public, and more importantly political, will to confront government agencies such as NB Power of the Canadian military regarding use of dioxin-contaminated herbicides. But to date, and with- out obvious reason, no similar claims have been made against private industries, which likely were the biggest users of the product. Even given this widespread usage, there remains some controversy over the potential ill effects on humans that the dioxin-contaminated herbicide could bring. While for years it was not known whether dioxin was present in 2,4,5-T, once it was discovered, accord- ing to Lautenschlager, it was removed by the manufac- turer. N.B. ee acannon . Sheffield . 95. ? % Oromocto au i