Pressure treated wood - is it safe, or is it toxic? This question has plagued consumers, government agencies, attorneys, judges, juries, lumber retailers, parks and recreation officials, and even the treated wood industry itself, since the late 1970s. Could this "miracle product" designed to never rot and never be eaten by insect pests possibly harm consumers and cause a wide array of health problems? Or, is the risk of harm exaggerated and the exposure benign?

For the past 3 decades, retailers and government agencies have trusted the treated wood industry to provide the answers to these questions. The treated wood industry, through its spokesman organizations, like the American Wood Preservers Institute (AWPI), has released numerous reports, studies and statements, and has distributed brochures around the country stating that Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA) treated wood is "safe and environmentally sound". The brochures, available at the sales counters of most major lumber retail stores, reassure consumers that CCA treated wood is "safe for human contact", and that there is "no risk to human health" for those who handle this product.

But is this true? Is the product really as safe as the industry states in their advertisements? Or have some concealed the potential health hazards of this product, leaving consumers in the dark about important safety risks?

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) have both struggled with the answers to these vital questions. These agencies are tasked with determining whether CCA wood is safe. Millions of taxpayer dollars fund their research into this one product.

Early this year, the EPA opted for a voluntary industry "ban" on the manufacture of CCA treated wood for residential use. This new restriction takes effect on December 31st.

Meanwhile, the CPSC released its long-awaited study which concluded that children from ages 2 to 6 exposed to CCA wood in playground equipment face an increased risk of lung and bladder cancer between 2-in-1 million and 1-in-10,000. These new risk findings shocked many around the world, compelling some cities, states and even countries to formalize their own bans on arsenic-treated wood.

The CPSC report also brought immediate criticism from the treated wood industry and their scientific advisors. Their criticisms: The CPSC study went too far; its methodologies and conclusions are not scientifically valid; CCA wood is safe if used properly. To illustrate his point, one industry spokesman who testified before the Consumer Product Safety Commission in March commented that the amount of arsenic that a child would be exposed to on the playground would be "no more than one gets from eating a bowl of rice".

The treated wood industry's official statements on treated wood also paint a rosy picture of a safe and harmless product. For example, on the cover of the AWPI brochure "Pressure Treated Wood: Safe & Environmentally Sound", Dr. Gilbert Ross, Medical Director of the American Council on Science and Health, is quoted as stating that:

"We have found that there is no risk to human health. There has never been any evidence that a human being has ever been harmed by it..."

Another example is this 2002 statement by Mel Pine, former spokesman of the AWPI. Responding to a question for a newspaper article by the Gainesville Sun on whether exposure to CCA treated wood could cause injury or illness, Pine stated:

"If there were a shred of truth to that, some scientist would have found that by now... and published something."

Statements like these by wood industry representatives may have some government scientists thinking that their risk assessment numbers are overblown. In our earlier report, "Fact vs. Fiction - Has the Treated Wood Industry reported the facts on the Safety of CCA Treated Wood?", we detailed point-by-point the errors we found in these industry statements. But now we have additional information that will show that some in the treated wood industry knew about the hazards of CCA treated wood products, and concealed the information from our government agencies and from the public.

 

The Smoking Gun Documents

The information found in this special report is referred to by some as "the smoking gun documents". They have been mentioned in passing in a few CCA-related news articles over the years, but resurfaced in a detailed article on CCA litigation efforts, written by a product liability defense attorney. In his May 2003 article, this attorney revealed the importance of the smoking gun memorandums:

"...According to the Lawyers Weekly USA website, a former CCA industry employee provided a plaintiff lawyer with a copy of a 1977 internal memorandum he authored which allegedly documented illnesses of individuals who came into contact with CCA. The memorandum documented a college researcher who became ill after sanding CCA-treated wood, a man who machined and planed CCA-treated poles for a week who developed a respiratory illness, and a workman who coughed up blood and developed a skin rash after building wood foundations. According to this former employee, his company never shared this internal memorandum with the EPA."

The author stressed in his anti-CCA litigation article the importance to present and future CCA litigants of this clandestine memo :

"It is the position of the plaintiffs' bar that the CCA industry never advised consumers that CCA treated wood contained arsenic and made misstatements denying that the wood contains arsenic. According to one plaintiff lawyer, the EPA would never have approved CCA-treated wood had the industry been truthful in 1977. If substantiated, this memorandum has the potential of exposing CCA defendants to fraud and punitive damages claims. A trial court's ruling on this document will obviously play a key role in determining the scope and breadth of the industry's exposure, financial and otherwise... The question that remains to be answered is whether there is scientific and medical evidence to support the alleged health affects of CCA exposure. The answer to this question and the treated wood industry's response to any "smoking gun" documents will likely path the way for either the surge of CCA-related lawsuits or their demise."

We certainly agree with this last statement. These "smoking gun documents" are significant to CCA plaintiffs and to those who seek the truth about whether there were human injuries from exposure to CCA treated wood products. It is also important to government officials and scientists, who rely on this information to evaluate whether the benefits associated with the use of a pesticide exceed the risks associated with its use.

The 1st Smoking Gun Memo

We tracked down the "plaintiff's lawyer" that the article described, and found out that there was indeed an internal "smoking gun memo". In fact, there were two such memos. The first was written in 1977 by Mr. Robert Arsenault, then in the employ of a major treated wood manufacturer. At that time, Mr. Arsenault also served in the American Wood Preservers Institute as the Chairman of the Environmental Programs Task Group Subcommittee No. 1, which handled CCA (chromated copper arsenate) topics and issues.

In late July 1977, Mr. Arsenault became concerned about several reports of CCA toxicity. As these reports of CCA-related injuries came to his attention, it compelled him to document the problems. A copy of that internal memo is shown below. [Note: we have removed the company logo information and company name from the original.]

It is clear from the memo above that the wood treatment manufacturer was aware of three reports of 5 or more people experiencing health problems from working with CCA treated wood products. The total number of injured persons is uncertain, however, in one of the accounts workmen were reported to have developed skin rashes and were "coughing up blood".

 

The 2nd Smoking Gun Memo

What is more important, though, is how this vital information about treated wood injuries was handled. Did the treated wood company report these adverse human health effects to the EPA? Did they file Incident Reports as required under Federal law? Under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), companies who use registered pesticides such as Chromated Copper Arsenate are required to file detailed incident reports with the EPA, especially if adverse effects with humans have been reported. This law took effect in the mid 1970s and currently carries stiff civil and criminal penalties for failure to report injuries or for falsifying FIFRA documents.

While one would expect that the treated wood company reported these incidents to the EPA in 1977- this apparently did not happen. In fact, the opposite appears to have occurred. A 2nd "smoking gun memo" from the files of the late Robert Arsenault reveals this. It is a memorandum issued in August 1977 to the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) of the EPA, only one month after the first memo about the consumer-reported injuries was written. (Remember that Mr. Arsenault was Chairman of the Environmental Programs Task Group Subcommittee at that time, and his name appears on page 2 of the memo, not shown.) Notice how the summary page of this official 1977 memo to the EPA (below), compiled by his subcommittee, describes the absence of any harm from exposure to arsenic-based wood preservatives, omitting vital information recently learned about the human health hazards associated with handling CCA treated wood: