E-Mail This Article to a Friend CITY HALL Ditch the dioxins BY ADAM REILLY

As the Phoenix went to press, the Boston City Council was poised to make Boston the first city in New England to adopt a measure aimed at reducing emissions of dioxins, a class of potent carcinogenic chemicals also linked to diabetes, birth defects, and immune-system impairment. Created by the manufacture and incineration of several products containing chlorine — including bleached paper and vinyl plastic frequently used in building and packaging materials — dioxins enter the food chain when animals eat contaminated matter. They slowly accumulate in the human body, and can be passed to infants by breastfeeding mothers who have consumed dioxin-laden meat, whole milk, and various fatty foods. After the Vietnam War, dioxins contained in the herbicide Agent Orange were tied to severe health problems among Vietnamese noncombatants and members of the US military.

The pending council resolution isn’t overly aggressive. Rather than barring or immediately reducing the use of dioxin-creating materials, it urges the city’s purchasing department to distinguish between products that do and don’t release dioxins during their manufacture and disposal, and to study dioxin-reduction programs already implemented in San Francisco and Seattle. It would also lead, over the next 12 to 18 months, to a new city purchasing plan aimed at reducing consumption of dioxin-generating building products and office supplies and increasing the use of affordable — and less hazardous — alternatives.

Earlier in the week, it was difficult to predict the outcome of the council’s vote. Councilors Felix Arroyo, John Tobin, Jerry McDermott, Maura Hennigan, and Michael Ross had all signed on, but the anti-dioxin bloc was still one vote short. On Tuesday morning, though, Chuck Turner, Charles Yancey, and council president Michael Flaherty added their names as co-sponsors. As the Phoenix went to press, the resolution seemed likely to pass at the council’s Wednesday-afternoon vote, barring some unexpected development.

The reluctance of some councilors to back the resolution may have stemmed from the intense lobbying generated by the proposed measure. While groups as disparate as Boston Firefighters Local 178 and the advocacy organization Health Care Without Harm backed the resolution at a July 29 hearing of the council’s Health and Human Services Committee, representatives from the vinyl and paper-products industries — both of which would take an economic hit if the city’s purchasing habits shifted — were also there to make their case.

"In the city council, we’re lucky to attract seven people to our meetings, never mind hearings," says Tobin, who chairs the Health and Human Services Committee. "There have been a few in the last couple of years that attracted big turnouts. This one wasn’t necessarily crowded — but when I heard people had flown in from other states, I said, ‘I think we’ve got something on our hands here.’"

Tobin says he was impressed by testimony from the firefighters and representatives from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, where a dioxin-reduction plan similar to that proposed for the city has already been implemented. He was also swayed by staffers at Clean Water Action, who plugged the proposal at his Jamaica Plain offices three weeks in a row. And he favors the resolution’s open-ended format.

"It really doesn’t mandate anything; it makes suggestions," Tobin says. "I know there’s much more to be gleaned from this, but I don’t think it’ll be harmful to get the ball rolling and at least start discussion on this on the city level."