Update: 1/30/2012 8:00 P.M.

New developments about the C8 study and liver disease.
It's a small development regarding more data and analysis.

Monday a doctor from the C8 science panel released more scientific data regarding a study reviewing a connection between the chemical used to make Teflon and liver disease. That chemical was found in the drinking water of communities around the valley.

The information regarding liver disease was first reported in July 2011. The new information adds to the data. Doctor Tony Fletcher says the new information still is not a probable link to liver disease. He says conclusions about that are still a few months off.
______________________________________________________

The C-8 Science Panel released preliminary findings on three different studies Tuesday.

Below, you can read the release from the Sciene Panel, as well as Dupont's response to the preliminary reports.

------------------------------------------------
From the C-8 Science Panel release:
C8 Science Panel Submits Three Reports to Court

The C8 Science Panel submitted three reports to the Wood County Court this week, summarizing findings from three separate studies of information collected and tests performed on participants in the C8 Health Project and a follow-up study of workers at the DuPont plant where Teflon is manufactured.

The first report, investigating liver function markers, related C8 levels in 47,092 adults to three clinical markers of liver function. The three markers measured include bilirubin, ALT (alanine aminotransferase), and GGT (gamma glutamyltransferase). With all three markers, increased levels indicate lowered liver function.

While there was no direct association between increase of PFOA (C8) and bilirubin or GGT, there was an increase in levels of ALT , related to increasing PFOA.

However, the Science Panel advises caution in interpreting this link found between PFOA and a marker of liver injury, because of the cross-sectional design of the C8 Health Project. Both PFOA and the liver markers were measured at the same time and therefore we cannot be sure whether the PFOA exposure came before any changes in markers of liver function. Ongoing work is addressing whether liver disease may be affected by raised exposure to PFOA.

The next report submitted to the court detailed the mortality (death) rate of workers employed at DuPont. The group included 5793 workers employed there between 1948 and 2002. The Science Panel looked at 92 causes of death, and the only one significantly higher than the US population was mesothelioma, a rare cancer caused only by exposure to asbestos and unlikely to be related to PFOA. Significant trends of increased kidney cancer and nonmalignant kidney disease were seen with higher PFOA exposure, based on small numbers. There was no overall excess of kidney disease compared to the US population.

The panel noted that mortality studies are not the best way to study many diseases which may not be fatal. Therefore they have conducted an additional worker study based on disease occurrence rather than deaths, and those results will be available in the first half of 2012.

In the third report, the group analyzed pregnancies of women occurring between 1990 and 2005, and studied the relationship between PFOA exposure around the time of pregnancy and the risk of miscarriage (loss of pregnancy before 20 weeks), stillbirth (loss of pregnancy after 20 weeks), preeclampsia (a condition involving high blood pressure and leakage of protein into the urine during pregnancy), preterm birth (early delivery), term low birth weight (an indication of reduced growth), and birth defects (abnormalities in the infant).

No association was found between PFOA levels and miscarriage, stillbirth, preterm birth, low birth weight or birth defects. There was a small but clear connection between preeclampsia and higher levels of PFOA. There are no other studies to support or challenge this finding. The group will be obtaining additional information on preterm birth and birth weight from ongoing analyses of health department birth records for the study area. These new records will be combined with the current records and other new data before a final assessment about pregnancy outcomes is made.

The C8 Science Panel was chosen to determine whether a probable link exists between C8 and any human disease as part of a class action settlement of a lawsuit involving releases of the chemical known as C8 from DuPont's Washington Works in Wood County, West Virginia.

The Science Panel is made up of three scientists from universities in London, Atlanta and Providence, Rhode Island. The three panelists were agreed upon by both DuPont and the plaintiffs. They are Dr. Tony Fletcher, Dr. Kyle Steenland, and Dr. David Savitz. More information on the panel and its work can be found at www.c8sciencepanel.org.

-------------------------------------------------
Dupont's Response to the panel's release:
DuPont Statement – July 19, 2011
Science Panel Status Reports, July 2011

The C8 Science Panel is conducting a series of eleven studies to determine whether there is or is not a probable link between exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and human disease in the communities around the DuPont site in Washington, W.Va. The Science Panel expects to communicate final conclusions from these studies periodically between the end of 2011 and July 2012.

The Science Panel filed three status reports on July 19, 2011. While they will continue to release interim reports, the Science Panel has explained that additional work is underway and must be completed before any conclusions could be drawn regarding cause and effect.

In one report, the Science Panel evaluated several pregnancy outcomes relative to estimated PFOA exposure in the communities surrounding the DuPont site.

No associations were observed between PFOA exposure and any birth outcomes that were evaluated.

A small statistical association was observed between estimated PFOA exposure and self-reported preeclampsia (elevated blood pressure and increased protein in the urine in pregnant women).

Another report compared three liver function values (ALT, GGT and bilirubin) and exposure to PFOA in the communities surrounding the site.

A statistical association was observed between PFOA and ALT. As indicated by the Science Panel, higher ALT may occur with a liver condition but does not necessarily imply one.

The design of this study does not allow for any cause-and-effect determination, and as stated by the Science Panel, “this makes it impossible to know whether PFOA can cause changes in liver markers.”

Another report looked at a population of employees who had worked at the DuPont site from 1948 to 2002, and compared causes of mortality to estimated PFOA exposure.

The report observed that overall mortality was low, which is common when comparing worker populations to the U.S. population. The DuPont workers had 30 percent lower mortality, and 26 percent lower cancer mortality, than the general U.S. population.

A statistical association was observed between higher estimated PFOA exposure and higher mortality due to kidney cancer and chronic kidney disease, though the Science Panel pointed out that “there was no overall excess risk of these diseases for all workers combined.”
Separate from the C8 Science Panel work, an occupational study among PFOA-exposed workers that was conducted by the University of Minnesota did not report any increase in kidney diseases, including cancer.

Mesothelioma mortality was higher in the workers included in the study than the general U.S. population. The Science Panel stated it does not believe this was related to PFOA, but rather, due to the connection between asbestos and mesothelioma. All DuPont sites adhere to strict federal and state health and safety standards regarding asbestos.
The Science Panel did not report any associations between estimated PFOA exposure and any of the other causes of mortality that were examined.