MOLD … A GROWING PROBLEM IN CONGRESS?

 (As reported by the American Industrial Hygiene Association Government Affairs Group)

Contact:

Vik Ahuja, CIAQP
Pure Air Control Services
(800) 422-7873, ext. 804
VAhuja@PureAirControls.com

“Mold” was the subject of a congressional oversight hearing held July 18 before the House Financial Services joint Subcommittees on Oversight and Investigations and Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity.  According to Rep. Sue Kelly, chairwoman of the O & I Subcommittee, the purpose of the hearing was to “to begin the process of separating the “facts from the myth” surrounding the impact of mold infestation.  Congress, she said, must “assess the true nature of the mold issue before rushing into legislative action.”

Although Rep. Kelly did acknowledge and express sympathy for those whose properties and health were jeopardized by mold infestation, she said that numerous medical experts have emphasized that mold cannot be directly linked to so many of the serious medical conditions for which it has been blamed.  She, in turn, called for the development of “better scientific standards and safety education.” 

With respect to the Democrats’ viewpoint, mold infestation is a real problem to property and to Americans’ health. Speaking on behalf of the minority, Ranking member Guitierrez did not go so far as to insist that there be government guidelines or standards set for mold toxicity but he did make a vehement point of raising the issue.  He did, however, go on the record as saying that homes should be insured for mold.

According to one witness, Dr. Stephen Redd, Chief of the CDC’s Air Pollution and Respiratory Health Branch/National Center for Environmental Health, the CDC is currently conducting several studies on mold and its effects on health, primarily in school and occupational settings.  Notably, he mentioned that the CDC is funding the IOM to evaluate the relationship between damp, moldy indoor environments and adverse health effects.  Under the effort, the IOM is to conduct a comprehensive review of the scientific literature focusing on respiratory/allergic symptoms.  Ultimately, the IOM report will include recommendations and/or suggest guidelines for public health interventions and future research.  Completion is expected in the fall of 2003.

Noting that there were “gaps” in the scientific knowledge of mold, Dr. Redd outlined for the subcommittee the CDC’s ongoing efforts to develop an agenda relative to research, service and education on molds.  The results of these efforts he told the subcommittee, will hopefully allow the CDC to: make recommendations for reducing mold contamination; identify environmental conditions contributing to mold exposure; and, assist state and local health departments to investigate mold exposures.

In his written and verbal testimony, Dr. Redd raised a key point in the toxic mold debate: that it is virtually impossible to specify either a safe or dangerous level at which mold becomes “toxic” at the present time.

Another witness on the panel, who was as equally impressive in terms of his background and knowledge of the subject matter, was Dr. Howard Sandler who has previously worked for/with NIOSH and OSHA and has served as a consultant with NYC to help them establish mold guidelines.

He essentially had three recommendations for the subcommittee: 1) use the “right” definition when relating to the mold issue.  Not all mold is indeed, “toxic.” Toxic mold is more of a media term and can induce hysteria. 2) If PELs are to be set, they should be established by specific mold species, chemical by-product and related health effect and, 3) Congress should provide for the adequate for studies to develop sound science on the mold issue before enacting any potentially short-sighted legislation.

Interestingly, Rep. John Conyers, sponsor of the federal toxic mold legislation, is not a member of either subcommittee but chose to sit in on the joint subcommittee hearing, presumably to garner additional input for his bill.  That legislation, H.R. 5040 has been referred to four separate congressional committees for consideration.  Although it is not likely that the bill will receive much congressional attention this year, AIHA is currently reviewing the legislation and working with Rep. Conyers’ staff regarding our interests relative to the issue.